PDA

View Full Version : A while in: is 8th better than 7th?



Pages : [1] 2 3

NixonAsADaemonPrince
22-08-2010, 22:47
Well I thought this needed to be asked, so after some time playing the game, do people think that 8th is better than 7th generally? Personally, I do.

Off topic: As I've just reached a 1000 posts, I'm going to stop putting Nixon at then end of my messages. I'm not quite sure why I started when it says it in quite big letters next to my every post.

billr
22-08-2010, 22:49
Yes, but this thread needs a poll. :)

Bac5665
22-08-2010, 22:51
I don't. I have yet to play a single game of 8E that was improved by the new rules, and several times both myself and my opponent have wished for the old rules.

Too many things just make no sense, or take away from the feeling of playing a game, not a civil war reenactment + dwarves. It really does feel now like after deployment, all there is to do is play the game out and see where luck takes us. At least in 7E, my own decisions were what decided the game.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
22-08-2010, 22:52
Yes, but this thread needs a poll. :)

Sorry, I was just setting it up.

SamVimes
22-08-2010, 22:55
8th is much better.

I have some quibbles with it (voiced elsewhere, and I refuse to re-iterate them again), but it is a much better system

ewar
22-08-2010, 22:59
Mixed feelings from me. A lot of the rules I think are daft and make it a worse game, but I love seeing actual proper armies on the table top. So, minor improvement overall.

Edit: By the way I think this is still much too early to get an objective opinion, as most gamers will only have played a handful of games under the new rules. We'll need at least 6 - 12 months to find out if it really is better.

Marshal Torrick
22-08-2010, 23:18
I enjoy the focus on infantry blocks, I just wish mine had gotten the same level of boosting that everyone else's have. Undead don't "survive" very long in this environment; they die quicker and I cannot heal them back nearly as fast as they go down.

NixonAsADaemonPrince
22-08-2010, 23:24
Edit: By the way I think this is still much too early to get an objective opinion, as most gamers will only have played a handful of games under the new rules. We'll need at least 6 - 12 months to find out if it really is better.

Oh I know, but I thought it was worth to get an update on peoples feelings about it. It will be interesting to see how the next few months pan out.

Edahlo
22-08-2010, 23:26
I think there are some interesting changes, and will make the best of it. This is the edition I will actually start playing the game, so I can't really compare it to 7th with firsthand experience, but I do read the forums.

Tymell
22-08-2010, 23:29
I went for minor improvement since I've only been able to play a few games, but it's felt better based on those.

Desert Rain
22-08-2010, 23:50
I like some things about it and I don't like others, it will be interesting to see how it stands the test of time in my opinion. Personally I think that I'm still in the "new and shiny" phase so I'll have to wait until that wears off make a better statement about how I feel about the new edition. At the moment I'm going with minor improvement though based on the dozen or so games that I've had so far.

Bloody Nunchucks
22-08-2010, 23:52
I like every thing except for the magic dice generation and some shooting issues, other than that its pretty good

Jind_Singh
23-08-2010, 00:12
8th all the way - it's a bit strange still and I'm still learning more and more everytime I play, and there are a few 'wtf' moments, but overall it's fun, fast, and thankfully has retained the essence of what I feel WFB to be.
It's a great step up from 7th, roll on good times!

~PrometheuS~
23-08-2010, 01:15
Went backwards

While some things are good, like step up and that, majority of the old rules should not of been dumb down, killing tactics with random chargers etc

These days its who is lucky at rolling dice wins

So no, 8th isnt better then 7th

Lord Inquisitor
23-08-2010, 01:24
Many great fundamental changes that are spoiled by their exact mechanics. Minor improvement from me, it was close to being truly excellent but certain aspects of the game are a little half-baked.

mathieu
23-08-2010, 01:56
8th succeeded in what 7th had repeatedly failed to do over its lifetime: it got me interested in actually playing Warhammer. I honestly can't say whether the rules per se are better or worse, but overall (since that's the OP's question) I find 8th better than 7th.

UberBeast
23-08-2010, 02:12
I loved 7th edition rules. I hate the 8th edition rules.

I loved the 7th edition in spite of the terrible army book creep and I could still win games with my O&G against some of the more powerful lists. Lots of people love the 8th because it changed the army book imbalance from the one they had taken for granted to one that they aren't sure of.

I prefered the devil I knew with a good set of rules against the devil I don't know with a dumbed down boring set of rules.

J.P. Biff
23-08-2010, 03:54
About the same for me in that there are rules I like and rules I dislike. Same way I felt about 8th. It comes back to the statement that can blanket most topics on Warseer: You're perception and opinion of the game and its rules/army books etc. is generally a reflection of your gaming area and the experience you've had against those you play with/against.

I liked the way 7th played in general. But those in my area took balanced lists with a mix of different unit types etc. No cav heavy armies etc etc. or many of the other things people complained about in 7th. (i.e. Daemons :p)

I am really starting to dislike what 8th seems to be degenerating into though, at least in my area. That is to say a "my spearmen vs. your spearmen" type game. I enjoy the fact that infantry has finally found a place at the forefront of most other peoples armies but again, we never had that problem in my area. But now, infantry is ALL I see (pretty much) and the games have really become quite boring even a month later.

Dammit... I think I want to change my vote... :D

kardar233
23-08-2010, 04:19
About the same for me in that there are rules I like and rules I dislike. Same way I felt about 8th. It comes back to the statement that can blanket most topics on Warseer: You're perception and opinion of the game and its rules/army books etc. is generally a reflection of your gaming area and the experience you've had against those you play with/against.

I liked the way 7th played in general. But those in my area took balanced lists with a mix of different unit types etc. No cav heavy armies etc etc. or many of the other things people complained about in 7th. (i.e. Daemons :p)

I am really starting to dislike what 8th seems to be degenerating into though, at least in my area. That is to say a "my spearmen vs. your spearmen" type game. I enjoy the fact that infantry has finally found a place at the forefront of most other peoples armies but again, we never had that problem in my area. But now, infantry is ALL I see (pretty much) and the games have really become quite boring even a month later.

Dammit... I think I want to change my vote... :D

Precisely. Well said, Biff.

(And don't go stealing my DeLorean! :D)

Tweakout
23-08-2010, 06:34
I like the emphasis on infantry being useful again, as alot of people do, but overall I feel its a minor regression. The core rules of seventh, outside of the magic phase, were pretty solid at making the game one of tactical moment. Now when I play with my Ogres it really seems like I build my lists on the strategy of weathering the storm. I have super improved shooting, with TLOS and no longer guess weapons, to weather and the disadvantage of crap Initiative to have me rely on surviving initial attacks in order to retaliate. The fact that in 7th I could make choices in my movement phase to help circumvent the weaknesses of my Ogres was a boon.

Alric
23-08-2010, 06:46
Well I thought this needed to be asked, so after some time playing the game, do people think that 8th is better than 7th generally? Personally, I do.

I like the balance that has been created for infantry and cavalry with the stepping up and steadfast rules, the return to Initative determing first strike and charges only recieve +1 CR as before.

I dont like the range measuring , I dont like the new M+2D6 charge rules and dont think changing either was necessary.

Fobster
23-08-2010, 06:54
I find it interesting that the poll is overwhelmingly in favour of a better edition yet most of the posts are negative. Shows whiners are more vocal than happy gamers in general.

Kudzu
23-08-2010, 07:05
It's still far to early to tell, remember that the thing that killed 7th was the army book power creep. I'd like to see more books like the Lizardmen; lots of choices for builds and good internal balance, special characters are too expensive for anything but fluffy/special games.

So far, I think it breaks even or slightly declines.

Some rules are fun and fitting-- Step up is good, strike in ini order is good, terrain not slowing things down to a complete crawl is good.

Some break even-- steadfast is the right idea but how it's calculated is bad (not counting all ranks involved in a combat, not being lost when flanked). Random charges and premeasuring are ok.

The complete destruction of the movement phase (who cares if I get flanked, I'll just charge my super-killy hero over then reform at the end of the phase, etc) and the balance of power between infantry and cavalry swinging too far the other way, however, are major losses in my book.

Justice And Rule
23-08-2010, 07:12
Major improvement. My group basically played Warhammer so we wouldn't play 40k games all the time. Now we love to play it since movement is no longer about precision, but position: we don't need to worry about exact measurements, but our actual tactics.

Depowering the charge, putting specialist troops into their place and infantry at the front, and making magic actually useful have made it so the few of us who didn't have armies (like me) actually want to own it ourselves rather than mooching off others all the time.

Alathir
23-08-2010, 07:51
Major improvement for me, I find myself having to rethink how all of my armies work and what strategies to use. Great fun, especially considering how flexible the army lists are now. Kudos to GW on this edition, I really feel like Fantasy is finally getting the attention it deserves.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
23-08-2010, 07:57
Ding! Dong! The witch is dead! :D

MasterSparks
23-08-2010, 07:59
I feel it as a slight regression. The game has introduced plenty of things that makes it fun in other ways than before, but ultimately it tore the heart out of what I found to be the most entertaining part of all, that being the precision-based movement phase with unforgiving mechanics and decisive bonuses and consequences for charging.

I don't think the game will have the same kind of replayability value in the long run. Not for me, at least...

Commissar Vaughn
23-08-2010, 09:49
Personnaly I feel 8th to be a great improvment: Im seeing more proper tactics (as opposed to simply "Combos" and powerdice maxing which are for Dweebs!), Im seeing proper armies, Im seeing less one sided games, more entertainment, more hilarity.

Definitly better.

sulla
23-08-2010, 11:43
I voted a major improvement, but first turn losses do suck majorly. (I just suffered two in the same night... but I was playing beasts vs gateway/pandamonium/hellcannon/kholek warriors).

TheKingInYellow
23-08-2010, 17:55
Once again it's about 75%-80% in favour of the new edition. So why is it that about 60% of new posts are complaints?

Talk about your vocal minority!

Sand
23-08-2010, 18:11
Many great fundamental changes that are spoiled by their exact mechanics. Minor improvement from me, it was close to being truly excellent but certain aspects of the game are a little half-baked.
That's pretty much my position as well. I do find the game more fun, but I also find that it could've been so much better.

Kal Taron
23-08-2010, 18:37
What we really need to wait for is what they do with the army books. Most editions looked perfectly fine with only the basic book and the first couple of books. But sooner or later a designer normally drops the ball. Although there are certain armies where this happens more often than others.
Undead/Vampires have been always prone to this and Chaos isn't really any better. Although the Beastmen book is surprisingly tame this time around.

decker_cky
23-08-2010, 18:47
6th edition chaos was incredibly tame. I don't think it was ever better than middle of the pack (even with min-maxed mixed lists).

The only out of line chaos lists have been:
-Storms of Daemonic legions list
-7th edition Chaos Daemons list

For power level, I'd put all the other chaos books well within the realm of balanced.


Once again it's about 75%-80% in favour of the new edition. So why is it that about 60% of new posts are complaints?

Talk about your vocal minority!

Welcome to the internet. :) My experience in stores is that people might like aspect A or B, but that the overall 8th edition experience is miles ahead of 7th.

DeeKay
23-08-2010, 18:50
It's still too soon to say tbh. I have to say though that more people here seem to like 8th ed than hate it, so I find myself in a minority at the moment.

With regards,
Dan.

Tymell
23-08-2010, 18:56
Once again it's about 75%-80% in favour of the new edition. So why is it that about 60% of new posts are complaints?

Talk about your vocal minority!

I was thinking about that too. Before it actually came out I saw mostly positive anticipation, and this poll shows that's still there. But it's actual arrival seemed to bring all the very vocal haters out, seemingly more so than other new editions.

commander of the marines
23-08-2010, 19:19
those who hate something the most are the ones most heard (crying loudest)

T10
23-08-2010, 19:33
8th edition has successfully shaken things up and stripped away the basis for what I've always considered to be "bad" Warhammer: inch-by-inch delaying tactics, brute magic defense, and combat power being overly weighted towards cavalry.

The "two ranks fight" rule is nice in that a lot more of the models in the units get to have an effect on the game.

-T10

Zaszz
23-08-2010, 20:02
I made a post on my blog summarizing my feelings, this post really tipped me over the edge into wanting to write how my group and I feels about the new edition.

Haters Gonna Hate (http://zaszz.blogspot.com/2010/08/quick-reads-8th-edition-haters.html)

Malorian
23-08-2010, 20:03
Tactically it is a step backwards, however I have to admit I'm having more fun overall.

sulla
23-08-2010, 20:09
6th edition chaos was incredibly tame. I don't think it was ever better than middle of the pack (even with min-maxed mixed lists).

The only out of line chaos lists have been:
-Storms of Daemonic legions list
-7th edition Chaos Daemons list

For power level, I'd put all the other chaos books well within the realm of balanced.



.WoC is pretty darn good in this edition. Just suffered two first turn losses to them with my beasts yesterday. Gotta love hellcannons + pandamonium. And gateway... Even if I'd made it to my turn, I still had to deal with great weapon toting khorne marauders nd nurgle halberd wielding warriors with the neverending frenzy banner.

Commissar Vaughn
23-08-2010, 20:11
Tactically its a step forward, away from gamey Combos and min/maxing towards envelopments and feints.

Bac5665
23-08-2010, 20:19
Tactically its a step forward, away from gamey Combos and min/maxing towards envelopments and feints.

That change is only people in your gaming community playing the game correctly because the new power combos aren't obvious yet. In 7E, the best tournaments I went to we all about those real tactics. So far 8E has been all about the dice roll and almost nothing to do with those tactics.

ChaosCajun
23-08-2010, 20:23
In general the rules are a vast improvement. I still have issues with the terrain system and other minor issues, but I really like the new feel of the game.

TheKingInYellow
23-08-2010, 20:24
That change is only people in your gaming community playing the game correctly because the new power combos aren't obvious yet. In 7E, the best tournaments I went to we all about those real tactics. So far 8E has been all about the dice roll and almost nothing to do with those tactics.

I just don't get this. how can you *not see* tactics in the game? Do you just deploy everything in the middle and see what happens?

UberBeast
23-08-2010, 20:50
I just don't get this. how can you *not see* tactics in the game? Do you just deploy everything in the middle and see what happens?

That's what the ruleset supports. People trying not to do this are usually dissapointed by how little the game changes either way.

Maoriboy007
23-08-2010, 21:04
6th edition chaos was incredibly tame. I don't think it was ever better than middle of the pack (even with min-maxed mixed lists).

The only out of line chaos lists have been:
-Storms of Daemonic legions list
-7th edition Chaos Daemons list

For power level, I'd put all the other chaos books well within the realm of balanced.



Welcome to the internet. :) My experience in stores is that people might like aspect A or B, but that the overall 8th edition experience is miles ahead of 7th.

I can't say I've really seen a tame chaos edition myself. 6 ed Hordes of Chaos was an incredibly powerful edition. 7th was probably the first edition they havent been at the top of the table, and even then they were still pretty good.

8th does have the benefit of being the new kid on the block, so its popularity will still be at a high point.
It's a good enough edition though.

Bac5665
23-08-2010, 21:20
I just don't get this. how can you *not see* tactics in the game? Do you just deploy everything in the middle and see what happens?

What Uberbeast said. I can flank charge in 8E, I can bait and flee, I can combines charge. All of those things are legal. None of them matter much. In 8E, all that matters is your list and how you set up, and then what luck you have. The game plays itself almost as automatically and without thought as WAR the card game. Even when everything has gone horribly wrong, there is very rarely a meaningful choice being made.

Now, in 7E, if you played with broken lists, this could happen. But if people played with lists that were policed for the most abusive elements, the game required true strategy to win, and presented many real choices, particularly in the movement phase. ]

So 8E is worse, because the game part is so flimsy and illusory.

Justice And Rule
23-08-2010, 21:48
What Uberbeast said. I can flank charge in 8E, I can bait and flee, I can combines charge. All of those things are legal. None of them matter much. In 8E, all that matters is your list and how you set up, and then what luck you have. The game plays itself almost as automatically and without thought as WAR the card game. Even when everything has gone horribly wrong, there is very rarely a meaningful choice being made.

...

This is so beyond not true it's not even funny.

All of those matter. We've gone over this dozens of times. Just because you refuse to recognize the meaning and worth of them does not mean they don't matter and that it's all up to luck.

I don't even understand how you can say the game is automatic; there were far more automatic results in 7th by comparison; hand-to-hand was almost certainly automatic as the charger held such a ridiculous advantage. This killed a lot of movement and tactics because it was so hard to last even a single round. Units behave and peform more predictably in that they'll be more likely to get consistent results in games due to their value and skills, but I thought that's what we wanted: Actually getting some worth out of the units.

You don't see the value in them, likely because you don't see the automatic results that each one of those had in 7th; all those would pretty much end a combat immediately in favor of whoever executed those. But those tactics still work. We've explained to you multiple times how they work. The problem here is that you refuse to listen.


Now, in 7E, if you played with broken lists, this could happen. But if people played with lists that were policed for the most abusive elements, the game required true strategy to win, and presented many real choices, particularly in the movement phase.

No, you couldn't. Everything was overpowered, the tactics consisted of marchblocking and moving in and out of charge range to lure the other guy into charging first, and whoever charged first won. There were no tactics, only lists, and it was essentially over before anything began because everyone knew who would win from the start.

Okay, none of that is true, or true to the level I'm expressing. There were tactics in 7th Edition, as shallow and non-reflective of actual tactics as I felt they were. But that's what you are doing: you don't like 8th, so you completely devalue and distort the truth. This is pathetic. Do you have any more vague generalizations to try and strengthen your opinion? Perhaps the standard "This edition was made for kids" would be up your alley?


So 8E is worse, because the game part is so flimsy and illusory.

The only illusion is the one you've written for yourself. Seriously, either stop your ridiculously pathetic sad-sack posts and get real criticism, or go somewhere else. This isn't about you not liking 8th, but making up sweeping (and blatantly untrue) generalizations to make your view seem more justified.

Bac5665
23-08-2010, 22:30
You're the person not listening. First of all, I'm talking about 7E WITH BALANCED LISTS. If you only played with daemons of Chaos and 40 chaos knight armies, and all knight bret busses, then obviously you'd think that there were no tactics in 7E. I'm coming from a competitive tournament experiences with balanced lists, where player skill one out. I can't help it if you never played in such an environment; that's your problem.

As to the tactics in 8E, I never claimed that such tactics don't exist, I'm saying that they aren't very effective or important. What motivation do I have to flank in 8E? If I beat you by enough to rid you of steadfast and to reduce your Ld to enough to likely break, I'd have done just about as well to the front. Or its a knight unit so expensive that it will blow up the first turn that my opponent has enough magic dice to power it through because its the obvious target.

I'm seeing in my games combat res that's regularly in the double digits. The +3 I get from the flank doesn't matter that much when just killing is more effective. Additionally, to get that flank, I needed luck, since charges are random, not fixed, so to get the flank, I had to get lucky. Probably, you also needed to fail your swift reform check in order to have moved slowly enough to expose your flank to me. Is flanking useful in a vacuum? Sure. But its a smaller bonus than ever before, and getting it depends on luck not skill. Now, since I can premeasure, it takes no skill to position the flank charge, and it takes no skill for the opposing player to check for the flank charge and defend against it. The only determinant is luck. Luck decides who gets this minor bonus, and that is less tactics, and the tactics that are there are automatic thanks to premeasuring and the ability to calculate odds in my head.

Why should I bait and flee in 8E? Just like with flanking, it can be useful, but again, the only question in pulling it off is luck. Now, instead of having to carefully position my bait unit to be as far in the charge range as I wanted but as far away as I wanted, its now automatic because of premeasure. And because of the random charge range, success or failure is based on yet another die roll. Bait and fleeing was already risky because of two die roll, and they did reduce its usefulness in 6-7E. But here in 8E is yet another that changes everything again. Instead of player skill in judging the correct set-up, premeasuring and more randomness have reduced the tactical value of this tactic.

The new BSB rules reduce tactics. Now terror bombing is gone. Panicking an army is almost impossible, even a low Ld army has a BSB that dramatically reduces the actual effect of psychology on the game. Were these tacicts too powerful in 7E? Sure. But now they are effectively removed from the game because fewer things panic and panicking is harder to do.

Surgical charging like Elves of all kinds did is gone. Now step-up means that all combat units must be able to take some damage or be useless. MSU is gone because random charging makes combined charges too risky. Hammer and anvil is gone because now most combats are wars of attrition, where the unit with more models wins. The hammer comes in, and just increases the combat resolution number, which is meaningless because of steadfast.

We trade all of the tactic options (I don't care whether you like them or not, or they were realistic or not; they were tactical options in a game and they required skill to use and made the game a game,) for one new one: go big or go home. Well, go big or go home doesn't really matter in game, its a list building exercise, which is fine, but I'm looking for an interesting game to go with my list building exercise.

Sure, flanking has some small value still. Sure, baiting has some small value still. Hammer and anvil even still has some value. But none of them are as effective as in 7E, and all of them are more dependent on luck and less on skill than in 7E. And in addition, there is a plethora of additional tactics that are just gone.

That specific enough for you?

Oh, and don't you dare ascribe motive to my posts attack my level of understanding again. You argued that I wasn't specific and that my criticism were generalizations. That's fine. But you offered only ad hominom attacks, rather than any argument about where the tactics in 8E come from. You claim I've been told where they come from before, but I don't recall ever seeing you user name before or any discussion with you, so I don't know where you get off claiming that. Please, I'd love for you to read my post and respond to my views on 8E with your views on why I'm wrong. But you'd better respond with specificity and logic, not generalizations and personal attacks.

Gatsby
23-08-2010, 23:06
The only illusion is the one you've written for yourself. Seriously, either stop your ridiculously pathetic sad-sack posts and get real criticism, or go somewhere else. This isn't about you not liking 8th, but making up sweeping (and blatantly untrue) generalizations to make your view seem more justified.

I have tried to sit in the sidelines in the 8th V 7th posts but this statement has brought me back in.

Change the 8th in your post to 7th and this exact quote could be tagged to almost ALL of your statements regarding 7th.

Read the opening poster he wanted peoples opinion so THIS is where he should post his complaints and his opinion.

Just a side note, while in the beginning you made good fair (giving you the benefit of the doubt) arguments. Your posts have turned into little more than Fanboi "GW can do no wrong" statements that seem to have little factual sustenance to them. Be careful not to become what you've been claiming others to be, whiny. I fail to see any facts in your post, I only see your opinion and your views, so take your own advice before giving it to others.

People have there own views of everything, some people dont happen to share your opinion. I don't share your opinion, and you have no right to belittle me or others because of that. We are posting our opinions in appropriate threads so if you don't like our opinions you can go to one of the many other threads on warseer or start your own thread asking for only people who like 8th to post in it.

Peril
24-08-2010, 00:32
I like everything except random charges (they are TOO random), and power scroll bombing purple sun/dwellers.

Justice And Rule
24-08-2010, 00:46
You're the person not listening. First of all, I'm talking about 7E WITH BALANCED LISTS. If you only played with daemons of Chaos and 40 chaos knight armies, and all knight bret busses, then obviously you'd think that there were no tactics in 7E. I'm coming from a competitive tournament experiences with balanced lists, where player skill one out. I can't help it if you never played in such an environment; that's your problem.

I play with balanced, characterful lists. Playing in a smaller game-club, cheese is not a way to continue to come back. While there are obviously tactics to 7th (As I conceded), the mechanics behind them never came off as fun or reflective of real tactics. Too much focus on the charge and small parts of movement than broader tactics. I said this before: I like the focus on position rather than precision. Not that you should be able to be sloppy with your planning, but I'd rather focus on proper execution than exacting measurements and such. To me, 7th was very much about exacting measurements, and not focusing on them would hurt you in the game; if you don't shuffle around to avoid charges, you were going to get pounded.

So balanced lists or not means little to me in 7th. I find the mechanics of 7ths, especially the focus on precise measurement dull and somewhat irritating. I find the way charges are executed to be poor, one-sided, and generally dull. While balance certainly plays into things, I've continually said that I don't like the mechanics of 7th, and I've heard that echoed by others. It's not just powerlists and creep, but the game itself.


As to the tactics in 8E, I never claimed that such tactics don't exist, I'm saying that they aren't very effective or important. What motivation do I have to flank in 8E? If I beat you by enough to rid you of steadfast and to reduce your Ld to enough to likely break, I'd have done just about as well to the front. Or its a knight unit so expensive that it will blow up the first turn that my opponent has enough magic dice to power it through because its the obvious target.

No, this isn't true at all. On the front, with most load-outs, you are unlikely to get nearly as many casualties or take as few in return. Spears and swords don't work to the flanks, but they do to the front. Considering that the enemy will have more attacks (or just have attacks sometimes) and may have a better defense speaks to this. That argument simply doesn't hold water; you are safer on the flanks in multiple ways and you are more helpful to your allies.

And really, if that's your argument, you can make the same case for 7th: If charged from the flank or from the front, if I killed off all the models in contact, what does it matter? There are less real benefits to flanking in 7th than there are to 8th, but you break easier in 7th so you'll kill the unit more often.


I'm seeing in my games combat res that's regularly in the double digits. The +3 I get from the flank doesn't matter that much when just killing is more effective.

Why does it matter? Well, when you are losing a lot more models because you are just charging straight in instead of trying to get advantageous flank attacks which minimize attacks coming back at you, you'll find out.

CR is not the end-all, be-all reward of tactics. Flanking shows this.


Additionally, to get that flank, I needed luck, since charges are random, not fixed, so to get the flank, I had to get lucky.

Luck plays a role, but it is hardly the only role. You can minimize luck's effect in your battleplan, but there's a balance to that, too; you have to find a sweet spot where you are chances are good, but your opponent isn't going to take advantage of it himself.

This is also balanced as charges are no longer the end-all, be-all in the game; instead of striking first (and potentially wiping out the defenders before they even strike back), you get a bonus to CR. So you are more likely to win a close combat, but you aren't going to bowl over your enemy like it used to be due to ASF.


Probably, you also needed to fail your swift reform check in order to have moved slowly enough to expose your flank to me. Is flanking useful in a vacuum? Sure. But its a smaller bonus than ever before, and getting it depends on luck not skill.

Yes, it is very useful outside a vacuum. And no, it does not only rely on luck. That is part of it, but maneuvering and good generalship play just as much a part in getting there.

And on the swift reform: if he turns to face you, he's exposing his flank to your battle-line (Assuming that you're flanking from the side). Just because he swift-reforms does not mean that all is lost. You have to support your flank moves.


Now, since I can premeasure, it takes no skill to position the flank charge, and it takes no skill for the opposing player to check for the flank charge and defend against it. The only determinant is luck. Luck decides who gets this minor bonus, and that is less tactics, and the tactics that are there are automatic thanks to premeasuring and the ability to calculate odds in my head.

But it still takes skill to position a flank charge; too far away and the opponent will ignore it, too close and the opponent will be ready for it. Now you have to figure out how your opponent will react rather than how good he is at guessing distance. Is he skittish, turning when you are within 13", or is he willing to take a risk when you are at 11"? Instead of guessing the magic distance, you have to gauge your opponent's reaction.


Why should I bait and flee in 8E? Just like with flanking, it can be useful, but again, the only question in pulling it off is luck. Now, instead of having to carefully position my bait unit to be as far in the charge range as I wanted but as far away as I wanted, its now automatic because of premeasure.

Same as above; you can draw out certain opponents and not draw others based on their personalities, not on their ability to guess distance. Some people are willing to risk a 12" charge, others won't. How far can you push your opponent? You can gain just as much as you used to, you just have to know what type of opponent you have.


And because of the random charge range, success or failure is based on yet another die roll. Bait and fleeing was already risky because of two die roll, and they did reduce its usefulness in 6-7E. But here in 8E is yet another that changes everything again. Instead of player skill in judging the correct set-up, premeasuring and more randomness have reduced the tactical value of this tactic.

You put all your value on measuring distance, rather than measuring your opponent's style of leadership. I value the latter much more than the former.


The new BSB rules reduce tactics. Now terror bombing is gone. Panicking an army is almost impossible, even a low Ld army has a BSB that dramatically reduces the actual effect of psychology on the game. Were these tacicts too powerful in 7E? Sure. But now they are effectively removed from the game because fewer things panic and panicking is harder to do.

BSBs can also be targeted, and are more easily lost in combat. It makes the banner a high-value target. 12" does not cover the entire board, and there are enough ways of targeting specific characters. It simply gives him value when he was near worthless before.


Surgical charging like Elves of all kinds did is gone. Now step-up means that all combat units must be able to take some damage or be useless.

Some tactics are lost. This is inevitable. Just because some armies have to adapt new tactics does not mean that things are done. I'll lose "Surgical Charges" for "extended combats" and giving infantry and larger units actually staying power, since you can't have that staying power if you want that sort of charge tactic to survive.


MSU is gone because random charging makes combined charges too risky.

There are more reasons than that for small unit armies being less effective. Increased ability for larger units to project power (Step up, ranked fighting), as well as less power to the charge certainly doesn't help. They are still viable, however, depending on the army you play. Some are certainly more viable than others (initiative based ones, for example).

Combined charges are riskier, but that can be minimized through proper generalship. In the end, there will be some risk, but there should be; not everything should be easily calculated and some things should be left up to fate.


Hammer and anvil is gone because now most combats are wars of attrition, where the unit with more models wins. The hammer comes in, and just increases the combat resolution number, which is meaningless because of steadfast.

That's not true. Now you can't just lure a charger in and then charge with a powerful unit the next turn and expect to wipe them out because you are automatically striking first, even if you are striking from the front. Instead you actually have to function more to how the tactic actually works; the anvil holds while the hammer maneuvers. There is still value to it, you just have to approach it differently. It's become harder, and in a way that I find more appropriate.


We trade all of the tactic options (I don't care whether you like them or not, or they were realistic or not; they were tactical options in a game and they required skill to use and made the game a game,) for one new one: go big or go home. Well, go big or go home doesn't really matter in game, its a list building exercise, which is fine, but I'm looking for an interesting game to go with my list building exercise.

Except "Go Big" can "Go Home" in a lot of different ways. Hordes have their own weaknesses which you are failing to address (inability to maneuver, not ranking up as well against smaller but more compact units). Now there is an actual reward (with risks, of course) for using larger units because there is an actual benefit to them. Before large units were useless because you got nothing out of them. Now there are actually some advantages, which there should have been before.


Sure, flanking has some small value still.

No, it has a great deal of value. More killing power, denying ranks which can allow a second unit to win a combat through CR, even if it caused less wounds, and not being struck back are all big benefits. We had a massive discussion on this within the last week or so.


Sure, baiting has some small value still.

It has the same value before; instead of relying on your ability to measure distance, its your ability to lure your opponent into making a risky or bad decision. Sure, he could hit that high-value unit, but he'd need to roll well. Is that worth the risk of putting your unit out of position?


Hammer and anvil even still has some value.

Indeed. It's great against hordes if you use the correct units. Due to the difference in how charges work, you simply don't gain as many benefits from hitting from any direction; you have to maneuver to get the benefit.


But none of them are as effective as in 7E, and all of them are more dependent on luck and less on skill than in 7E. And in addition, there is a plethora of additional tactics that are just gone.

They are not more dependent on luck than skill. There is now an element of luck involved; nothing is a sure thing to rely on, which makes things less automatic and forces a commander to weigh different risks to different tactics.

Your problem is that you have dismissed anything that involves some luck as being completely based on it. It's not. It demands judgment on the situation, instead of judgment of distance. That's where the change is, and where we disagree. You want control; that's the way you game. That's not wrong, but just because this game is more random than you like does not mean that skill is gone and randomness reigns supreme.


That specific enough for you?

Yes, actually. This is the sort of discussion I was trying to get out of you, instead of this "All is woe, tactics are dead (or might as well be), and this game is now an poor illusion of a wargame". I respect this posting. I didn't respect what you previously said.


Oh, and don't you dare ascribe motive to my posts attack my level of understanding again. You argued that I wasn't specific and that my criticism were generalizations. That's fine.

Great. And you addressed that criticism, even though I intensely disagree with your reasoning.


But you offered only ad hominom attacks, rather than any argument about where the tactics in 8E come from.

Because the burden of proof is on you. You made the claim, and I called you out on it because it's crap. I'm frankly tired of myself (and other defenders of 8th) having to go around continually justifying why there are tactics in 8th and giving examples, and you making an incredibly broad, blanket statement of how tactics are useless without any sort of justification given.

Also, ad hominem? You called the game part "Flimsy and Illusory". What's that say to the people who enjoy and play it? That they aren't as smart as you to see through the clever illusion the carnies at GW are pulling on us? There is a difference to saying "The role of tactics is severely reduced due to the more randomized nature of the game" and "the game is basically an illusion". One is an actual criticism; the other is a passive-aggressive insult.


You claim I've been told where they come from before, but I don't recall ever seeing you user name before or any discussion with you, so I don't know where you get off claiming that.

I've been in multiple threads about things like this and flanking, how randomness does not mean that everything is now a test of luck, and more. I've had very good discussions with some people, and discussions more towards where your original post was with others. I've seen your previous sort of post before in other threads and I've never felt the need to directly address it until now because I was already in a different discussion.

As to where I get off claiming this: I've seen you in other threads with posts less extreme than the previous one, but still on the edge bemoaning 8th like that. I may not have responded to them, but I've seen you tack on those sorts of posts. The way you said it this time really irritated me.


Please, I'd love for you to read my post and respond to my views on 8E with your views on why I'm wrong. But you'd better respond with specificity and logic, not generalizations and personal attacks.

Wonderful! I doubt my post will live up to your hopes, but at least I tried. And I'm glad you tried; I'd rather these sorts of posts than the one you posted before. You don't need to be lengthy, but less melodramatic and more justification would be helpful.

Justice And Rule
24-08-2010, 00:57
I have tried to sit in the sidelines in the 8th V 7th posts but this statement has brought me back in.

Change the 8th in your post to 7th and this exact quote could be tagged to almost ALL of your statements regarding 7th.

Really? I find most of the time asking people for justifications and examples. While I occasionally miscalculate, I do try and use things like statistics and logic to justify my statements. For example: I've continually explained and justified my position on flanking, how it works, and why it shouldn't change. I have problems with people who don't justify their extreme opinions, or people who use poor justifications.


Read the opening poster he wanted peoples opinion so THIS is where he should post his complaints and his opinion.

Just because you have an opinion does not make it above reproach. Your very post here shows this. I'm fine with you disagreeing with 8th (I haven't attacked everyone in this thread), but when I find him calling certain tactics worthless and calling the game itself "Flimsy and illusory", I find I have to say something.


Just a side note, while in the beginning you made good fair (giving you the benefit of the doubt) arguments. Your posts have turned into little more than Fanboi "GW can do no wrong" statements that seem to have little factual sustenance to them. Be careful not to become what you've been claiming others to be, whiny. I fail to see any facts in your post, I only see your opinion and your views, so take your own advice before giving it to others.

Really? I remember having a nice discussion about tweaking magic in the other thread with Lord Inquisitor. And I thought a Ravening Hordes list would have been the smart thing to do with the drastic changes they made to some units, as they are now overvalued (And example would be Cavalry, which needs to be a bit cheaper).

And look up what "whiny" means: I'm not complaining, I'm challenging. I wanted him to justify himself or stop it already. Normally I wouldn't be so grating, but I don't like someone saying I've been fooled into liking something when I'm fairly sure I haven't. I find it insulting, especially when I think the logic behind it is severely flawed.

I like debate. I just get irritated when we go over things continually or people use bad examples and unsupported opinions. If you give examples (Again, Lord Inquisitor was good at supporting his opinion, even if I disagreed with it). You might fail to see "facts" in my posts, but you'll see logic in my posts because there are no hard facts to the debate, but there is logic in someone's reasoning.


People have there own views of everything, some people dont happen to share your opinion. I don't share your opinion, and you have no right to belittle me or others because of that. We are posting our opinions in appropriate threads so if you don't like our opinions you can go to one of the many other threads on warseer or start your own thread asking for only people who like 8th to post in it.

I didn't call out everyone in this thread. I know I'll disagree with some people, and he's the only one which I really had a problem with. Again, opinions are not above reproach. If you have an extreme opinion, you deserve to have it challenged. I'm okay with having my opinion challenged, otherwise I wouldn't still be posting here.

Bac5665
24-08-2010, 02:12
Lots of stuff

Thank you for the serious reply :) I like good dialog rather than just puffing.

I'm not going to respond line by line, because it's clear to me there are bigger issues to discuss. I think we agree that we want very different things out of the game. You want realistic feeling tactics, and I want complex tactics that make me think, regardless of their realism or whathaveyou. Neither position is "wrong" or even mutually exclusive. If that's not what you think, let me know, but I think that its close.

Oh, and as for the veiled insult of those who like a "flimsy and illusory game," I certainly didn't mean it as an insult. What I meant was that the strategic depth in this game in 8E is flimsy and illusory. And you're right that I wasn't trying to be specific in that post. I've given my views about 8E many, many times on this forum and didn't at the time feel like repeating myself. It was meant to be a cheep interjection of my dissatisfaction. But, I respect your right to disagree. And even if I'm right (as I obviously believe I am,) it's no insult to like a game without a ton of depth; as indicated above, its perfectly fine to disagree about what makes a good game. Nothing wrong with the attitude expressed by the thread about "awesome" events in 8E. If those kinds of things make you have fun, more power to you. I genuinely don't understand what's fun about those things, most of them sound like horrifically unlikely events dictating the outcome of the game, which would be very frustrating to me, rather than fun. But hey, if it works for you great. The problem I have is when people tell me that what's fun for me isn't ok.

As to the specific talk of tactics, what matters to me about how useful a tactic is, is two-fold: how effective is it, and can I rely on it? In 8E every tactic lost something in one of those two catigories, many in both. We can argue about degrees--and I'll give you that flank charges are still more useful than I gave credit in my original post--but they are most certainly less effective or less reliable or both. And I feel (and my several games of 8E have largely confirmed) that I really can feel the loss of control and the game feels less like a game and more like a reenactment. It feels much more "realistic" in the sense that the tactics feel like the same one's I use in the Total War video games, which are supposed to be about as realistic as video games get. The problem I have is that the combats in those games are boring to me. Once you know the units well enough, you know which units you have to flank, you know which match-ups you can't win and you know what will happen when you do any particular thing. Well, the same has been true so far in 8E. The only difference is, thanks to all the new randomness, instead of feeling gratified by the relatively simple tactics of knowing which units match up how, in 8E, sometimes those things go horribly wrong through no fault of my own. Well, I just find that frustrating. It's not fun for me when my Slaan blows up, or your Runelord on an Anvil kills himself, or Teclis blows up a whole unit dark elf warriors in one turn.

That kind of stuff is increadably frustrating to me, and every time it happens, I have less fun. I want to win because I was better, not because I was luckier. So I want luck minimized. Well, in 8E, there is a ton more luck. And you have to get lucky in order to win. In 7E, I could win with bad luck. Now, sure, it will happen every once in a while, but now luck plays a much bigger role.

And, as it happens, I don't believe in luck in real life. There is no charge role in battle; sure, you may not know exactly how far your troops will run before tiring, but that's simply a lack of knowledge, not luck. I may not know how many troops my swordsmen will kill, but that's not due to luck; its because in the swirling melee of battle, there are too many variables for any person to keep track of. There is no luck in real life; so adding it in the game is only a cop-out, at least to me. It detracts from realism in my view, rather than add to it.

Anyway, I believe that 8E has fewer tactics because it invalidated many tactics, hasn't added any that I can see and the tactics that are left are weakened. All of that adds to less tactics, and combines with much more random rules (see the terrain rules, for the worst of it, but random scenarios are no better,) to make a game that has significantly reduced my ability to let my own skill determine the outcome. That frustrates me. Especially when I know that GW could have made us both happy. I'm certain that they could have found a way to make the game "feel" right, with "realistic" tactics, but with still having those tactics play the role I want, and without doing as much damage to my ability to play a game, not just direct a choreographed reenactment, which really is what my games have felt like.

BluePojo
24-08-2010, 02:21
I find it interesting that the poll is overwhelmingly in favour of a better edition yet most of the posts are negative. Shows whiners are more vocal than happy gamers in general.

+1, this is exactly what I was thinking reading the thread.

It's far and away considered to be a major improvement taking the poll results, but still all you see is complaints written out (save the great dialog directly above. :) )

freddieyu
24-08-2010, 02:24
Adjust and readjust...

8th ed has fewer 7th ed valid tactics, but I'm sure has new 8th ed valid tactics....it pays now to have a reserve unit within your list instead of relying on deathstars and such...

As many have agreed, 8th is the superior version....however, WHFB is YOUR game, so you can play it however you like. I'm sure you will still find the few players who prefer 7th and game with them....

Kisanis
24-08-2010, 04:38
8th succeeded in what 7th had repeatedly failed to do over its lifetime: it got me interested in actually playing Warhammer. I honestly can't say whether the rules per se are better or worse, but overall (since that's the OP's question) I find 8th better than 7th.

Honestly I couldn't have said it better.
I started with WHFB in 5th edition, and was so happy to see 6th come. But after a while of 6th (I played brets through this too... so no armybook forever) It became boring. Why? Because every game really seemed to play the same. I got the feeling with 7th when it came out (We actually had ignored fantasy so much that we didn't start 7th until it had been out for a year or two).

Long story Short, after all this I'm actually excited to play fantasy again which is by far the best part.

Better? No. Worse? No. Different? 100% and I enjoy different, especially if its an enjoyable game with a beer and some good friends !

Kudzu
24-08-2010, 05:42
+1, this is exactly what I was thinking reading the thread.

It's far and away considered to be a major improvement taking the poll results, but still all you see is complaints written out (save the great dialog directly above. :) )

There are also a lot more bad players than good ones, interesting coincidence?
:D

freddieyu
24-08-2010, 06:27
Honestly I couldn't have said it better.
I started with WHFB in 5th edition, and was so happy to see 6th come. But after a while of 6th (I played brets through this too... so no armybook forever) It became boring. Why? Because every game really seemed to play the same. I got the feeling with 7th when it came out (We actually had ignored fantasy so much that we didn't start 7th until it had been out for a year or two).

Long story Short, after all this I'm actually excited to play fantasy again which is by far the best part.

Better? No. Worse? No. Different? 100% and I enjoy different, especially if its an enjoyable game with a beer and some good friends !

Perfect summary of my 12 year WHFB career! (except I play empire and lizards!!!)

KHolbourn
24-08-2010, 09:32
I'm finding 8th Ed far better than 7th Ed for a few reasons.
1. Infantry is viable again! With a mainly state troop Empire army my ranks of men have a purpose as opposed to being speed bumps that would get run down any enemy knights or a flank charge of 3 marauder horsemen.

2. I find more "real tactics" as opposed to the random vagaries of the redirecting rules and angling ovverruns and the like. Now its reliant on using blocking units to protect artillery bunkers, combined charges and flanking moves with fast moving cavalry or sacrificing portions to hold up scarier enemy units. Not just "shuffle & delay" hovering for that 1/4" mistake.

3. Games are more fun! Often lots of combat by turn 2. And the step-up rule means I get to participate in combat rather than "i'm charged, I lose front rank, I break and I die".

4. magic is more interesting. The BRB lores now matchs the silly army book lores and have lots of interesting spells. I love shadow, life and metal for the augments/hexes that make infantry better!

Basically I feel its a massive improvement and forces you to have a real combined arms approach with supporting magic & gunfire, "anvil blocks" to deny your enemies staefast and flanking hammer blocks to swing the combat in your favour (again aided by the magic and the guns).

phoenixguard09
24-08-2010, 09:50
I believe that 8th edition is just another example of GW finding something that doesn't work and, BAM! Try to fix it twice over.

(This is a small peek into the design process of 8th Ed.)

Like Heavy Cavalry in 8th because in 7th they are the be all and end all for all the people on the forums. First lets have supporting attacks but nerf them for cavalry. So now cavalry are worse than they were. Now we'll take infantry and give them Steadfast. Good idea, yes. :rolleyes: Now cavalry are bloody useless.

What about monstrous infantry. No one takes them. Hmm lets make sure they'll get full attacks from the back rank. That'll make 'em better. But hell lets give them extra hits at the end of combat. Yeah! Way to go GW. Why the hell take cavalry when Monstrous Infantry are faster and hit an absolute **** tonne harder.

And Magic. Lets have a massive amount of spells with names of dubious quality, (Fulminating Flame Cage and Piercing Bolts of Burning:wtf:I'm looking at you.) and we'll just chuck in massive casting rolls. That'll help prevent people from dominating with magic. And then reduce the amount of power dice available. Because hells yes, We've just made magic bloody pointless. Too random to rely on. As a previous poster stated, Its just line up your armies and roll a crap tonne of dice. "I rolled 2 6's. BANG!!!" And instead of keeping magic relatively subtle and providing an interesting side game, NO!. It either does nothing or completely obliterates half a table. (I'm sorry I apologise for my blatant exaggeration.)

Oh and terrain. People don't use much terrain do they. So lets make it integral. It's now a rule to have terrain pieces but lets have it so they're fun terrain pieces. I know lets have a 1 in 6 chance that the forest is normal with the other 5 chances include having a powerful magic item in there or it wants to kill you. YEAH! THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN ABSOLUTE LOAD OF FUN! I WANT MY ARMY TO BE KILLED BY RAVENOUS TREES! BUT GUESS WHAT I PLAY WOOD ELVES! (I apologise again for this blatant rant.)

In conclusion anyone from GW, I hope you made it through my quite possibly insulting and derogatory post. <----Deleted trolling comment. WarSeer Inquisition---->

/rant

Yeah I voted minor regression because hey it could have been worse. <----Deleted trolling comment. WarSeer Inquisition---->

Sexiest_hero
24-08-2010, 10:21
8th is better than 7th TO ME in a lot of ways, and to a lot of 40k people who thought the 7th edition rules were silly. Here are some.

Your 5 knights just killed the front rank of troops the other 30 guys stand around like dummies. That's not tactics or fun to play or watch.

Same as above but, your guys break and all get run down. without ever having done a thing.

So everybody takes MSU, "Hey look at my army of 5 people in a line oh sometimes it's 10 people.

This unit rocks, oh wait it has frenzy :(

Hey look there is a stupid big bird behind you, walk like an old man now.

Oh and I'm going to be 1 inch out of your charge range forever, good game.

OH you hit my unit in the side, my hero can't help out on that side till I can win a round of combat, so much for being heroic...

Purple sun is broken. Just like daemons Vampire res spam and Dark elf elf magic was before. But in 7th it was called "Tactics" Now that more people can contest the magic phase it's not cool.

Step up is stupid. Yeah that's what happens when the guy in front of you dies. Not sit there and wait your turn

Stead fast is stupid. we have 40 guys they have 5.....5! Bring it on!

guess weapons are random, guessing is a random thing. if it's not guessing it would be called knowing. how is 8th more random with the old guess weapons.

8th is a God send for people who wanted to play but thought the rules were silly.

WHat I like most about random charging is you never know how far it may go so you have to plan what happens if you make it or not, and vice versa. Can they win the fight, well that unit get buffed. are my flanks to big with this horde. What if I try to get closer and he gets a long range charge on me. Every action has many possibilities that can happen that you must think over. Unlike Oh it's a daemon army, gg.

to the poster above, Monster Infantry usually have bad saves, are clunky to move, and are huge targets with TLOS

Lord of Divine Slaughter
24-08-2010, 10:31
Heavy cavalry still works, but like infantry, you probably need bigger units, and unlike in 7th, where you just trampled over infantry, you need to use a bit of tactics to use - WOW! you need to use tactics? How cool is that! :D

Monstrous infantry are expensive and needs to be cool, they have now become the hammer that cavalry was, but hey unlike cavalry, they will probably strike last due to low initiative (not to mention certain spells), and they suffer from low ws and poor armour - in fact they're great targets for heavy cavalry (which they won't stomp).

Magic is not the all-or-nothing it was in 7th., isn't that great :D Also it got its own role in the game, instead of shooting MKII, it is all about Augments and Hexes, yes certain things are a little out there, but nothing compared to 20PD of magic missiles or Invocation of Boredom. Also those super spells out there discourages people from using the ol' death star.

Yes, terrain can be a bit too much - or too little - in 10% of the games, but it now gives variation to the game, and the choice of where to fight can have huge consequences - OMG, more tactics! :D

Army builds are now a greater exercise in checks and balances, you have more options, all units have purpose in the game instead of some being plain useless.

8th is the tactical edition, where you have to adapt to the game, instead of just relying on the optimal internet list of doom to do its thing untill the next über build comes out.

Commissar Vaughn
24-08-2010, 10:50
Like Heavy Cavalry in 8th because in 7th they are the be all and end all for all the people on the forums. First lets have supporting attacks but nerf them for cavalry. So now cavalry are worse than they were. Now we'll take infantry and give them Steadfast. Good idea, yes. :rolleyes: Now cavalry are bloody useless.


Wrong. So Wrong. Im still using my Empire and Dogs of War Lancers in units of 5 or 6. Theyre are still doing absolutely fine. They are most effective against units deployed in lines, and less so against units formed up in a deeper formation....hang on, thats almost :eek: REALISTIC! :eek:.

dont expect them to break deep formed enemy in one round anymore, either send them against something more fragile or prepare for the long haul. 5 lancers are perfectly adequate for smashing into the front of any unit: Yes they might stand, but in 3 or 4 rounds theyll be a bloody battered mess waiting for the coup de grass ;). Same with monsters, no they cant break a horde of 50 spearmen in one round anymore (well actually they can, with luck) but just you come back in 3 or 4 rounds of combat: Those spearmen will be looking like theyve just got on the wrong side of a very angry blender and that monster will be looking very well fed...

I would say that I believe out flanking to be the most important tactic now, simply becouse it cuts down the number of attacks your going to get back. It leaves your units in much better shape for destroying the rest of your enemys units.

Alric
24-08-2010, 11:00
have made it so the few of us who didn't have armies (like me)actually want to own it ourselves rather than mooching off others all the time.Well that puts a new light on things. :wtf:


The only illusion is the one you've written for yourself. Seriously, either stop your ridiculously pathetic sad-sack posts and get real criticism, or go somewhere else. This isn't about you not liking 8th, but making up sweeping (and blatantly untrue) generalizations to make your view seem more justified.
Or an "Illusionary" army perhaps ?
A view shared by some of us that have PURCHASED our own armies , and spent hours and hours painting and crafting them.
I have tried to sit in the sidelines in the 8th V 7th posts but this statement has brought me back in.
People have there own views of everything, some people dont happen to share your opinion. I don't share your opinion, and you have no right to belittle me or others because of that. We are posting our opinions in appropriate threads so if you don't like our opinions you can go to one of the many other threads on warseer or start your own thread asking for only people who like 8th to post in it.Yes Gatsby, and they are opinions shared by some of those that have spent their money and spent their time collecting and painting their warhammer armies.

While I occasionally miscalculate, I do try and use things like statistics and logic to justify my statements...I like debate.
Perhaps for some players this is MORE THAN justa "debate" of "statistics" and rules.
For those that have spent the time and money collecting and painting their armies as well as YEARS of experience playing those armies in local groups and tournaments that they have a much better perspective than you , and at least have an actual investment in it.

Regardless , for someone like you playing warhammer isn't any different than "debating" in a forum thread , after all is said and done , good or bad win or lose you have no REAL investment in either.
I find it both ironic and very telling that one of this forums biggest proponents of Warhammer 8th edition isn't invested in it , literally.:wtf:

Avian
24-08-2010, 11:19
I can't get over my annoyance at having to stay 1" away from everything or the new line of sight "rules".

Oh, and template weapon lost all the fun. :(

wizbix
24-08-2010, 11:19
Two things not up for debate is that: 1) the Tinternet is full of useless opinionated and useless debates; 2) Many of us enjoy those useless opinionated and useless debates. :)

Ulfson
24-08-2010, 11:38
If we go by the poll at the top of the screen, it would appear that GW has at least (for the moment) done the right thing - they've managed to please the majority of hobbyists.

Of course, Warseer couldn't be possibly considered as the majority of hobbyists.

I have enjoyed 8th so far. I've played perhaps 11 games since July, all with my Dark Elves, with about 8 wins. My last three games were all losses, so I think my friends are starting to learn my tactics a bit :)

*edit: Make that 7 wins, 1 draw.

It seems to me that the playing field was leveled somewhat (not completely I know, but the gaps between armies are much smaller now, which is about as much as you could hope for) and the fact that there are just about no certainties is great as well. You can only build a strategy over the highest probabilities.
"If I roll five dice and add my +4 casting level to it, I should be able to cast this 15+ spell... maybe even Irresistibly cast (and miscast)!"
And that's the way (IMHO) it should be. There should be no auto-wins. Just excellent chances that you need to capitalise on.

Alric
24-08-2010, 11:48
If we go by the poll at the top of the screen, it would appear that GW has at least (for the moment) done the right thing - they've managed to please the majority of hobbyists.

Of course, Warseer couldn't be possibly considered as the majority of hobbyists.

You have to consider also those that are invested in GW that would go out of their way to vote in favor of the new edition. I know several online gaming groups that do the same any time their group is mentioned on the internet.

Time will tell what players truely think about 8th edition.

Sardaukar
24-08-2010, 12:14
I voted for major improvement, simply because 8th finally made me play Fantasy. I began collecting my High Elves army in 7th edition (mainly, because I love that "army-feeling" ranked up troops on movement trays give you), but after a few test games and after some reading in forums (so, moving two inches back is a proper tactic? Right, sounds like fun! :wtf: ) I gave up and shelved my army. The rumours about 8th got me back, and since I first read the rulebook, I was addicted. Haven't played a single game of 40k since, my High Elves are expanding quickly, and soon I'll summon an undead horde! Good times!

Bishop5
24-08-2010, 12:17
I love 8th; hardly played 7th as I might as well have just played chess - it's a wargame, so it should have the random element (war) and the fun element (game) - 8th has both.

Daniel36
24-08-2010, 12:25
About the same for me in that there are rules I like and rules I dislike. Same way I felt about 8th. It comes back to the statement that can blanket most topics on Warseer: You're perception and opinion of the game and its rules/army books etc. is generally a reflection of your gaming area and the experience you've had against those you play with/against.

I liked the way 7th played in general. But those in my area took balanced lists with a mix of different unit types etc. No cav heavy armies etc etc. or many of the other things people complained about in 7th. (i.e. Daemons :p)

I am really starting to dislike what 8th seems to be degenerating into though, at least in my area. That is to say a "my spearmen vs. your spearmen" type game. I enjoy the fact that infantry has finally found a place at the forefront of most other peoples armies but again, we never had that problem in my area. But now, infantry is ALL I see (pretty much) and the games have really become quite boring even a month later.

Dammit... I think I want to change my vote... :D

So you are saying that 8th edition actually turned your gaming group from balanced players to power gamers? That's pretty much the other way around!!

I am finally enjoying my games... I always liked infantry better than characters...

Ulfson
24-08-2010, 13:00
You have to consider also those that are invested in GW that would go out of their way to vote in favor of the new edition. I know several online gaming groups that do the same any time their group is mentioned on the internet.

Time will tell what players truely think about 8th edition.

What do you mean by this? As in actual financial investors, or those who are invested emotionally?

I think the end result of what players truly think about 8th edition will depend on the player, and what their values in regard to wargaming is. My personal values sync very well with 8th, and (so far) most Warhammer enthusiasts seem to sync with it as well.

Of course, time will tell. But I have a feeling that we will see a similar percentage of "warhammerers" agree that the 8th ed was an improvement on 7th in 12 months time as we do now.


I voted for major improvement, simply because 8th finally made me play Fantasy. I began collecting my High Elves army in 7th edition (mainly, because I love that "army-feeling" ranked up troops on movement trays give you), but after a few test games and after some reading in forums (so, moving two inches back is a proper tactic? Right, sounds like fun! ) I gave up and shelved my army. The rumours about 8th got me back, and since I first read the rulebook, I was addicted. Haven't played a single game of 40k since, my High Elves are expanding quickly, and soon I'll summon an undead horde! Good times!

I've got to agree - I always loved the idea of big ranked up units. A proper "wargame", not some MSU skirmish clap-trap.


I love 8th; hardly played 7th as I might as well have just played chess - it's a wargame, so it should have the random element (war) and the fun element (game) - 8th has both.

Agreed. As I said earlier, there should be no certainties in wargames, just percentages (again, IMHO).

Djekar
24-08-2010, 13:06
I am in the same boat with other posters before me. I think that tactically the introduction of more randomness in the movement phase is a step backward, but I am having an absolute blast so far in this edition - so if that's our instrument of measurement, I would say that it's a major improvement.

nonrelatedarticle
24-08-2010, 14:00
I was a bit shaky on 8th at first because of all the doom and gloom I heard flying about but after a few games I think its definitely an improvement .

hwd
24-08-2010, 14:51
Magic may have become a bit too good but more infantry is awesome!

Lord of Divine Slaughter
24-08-2010, 16:05
Regardless , for someone like you playing warhammer isn't any different than "debating" in a forum thread , after all is said and done , good or bad win or lose you have no REAL investment in either.
I find it both ironic and very telling that one of this forums biggest proponents of Warhammer 8th edition isn't invested in it , literally.:wtf:

Boo-hoo-hoo! You put a few bucks into playing a game, big deal. Dry your eyes and have a cookie ;)

What you seem to have misunderstood, is that you don't have to play 8th, if you don't want to. You aren't forced to buy the BRB, new minis or even the odd White Dwarf. Heck, there are people out there still playing 5th, or weird mixes of the editions with a bunch of house rules. You need to take the game and make it your own :)

Say you like steadfast, but wants to negate it. Make up a rule to do so. Say you hate random charges, but love TLoS, then don't do random charges and get that models eye view every time. Its really that simple.

I find 8th superior to 7th in most ways, and is currently trying it out in all possible ways to see what works for me and my group. At some point we might tire of certain things, but thats the reason we haven't thrown out the old books. Heck! We wouldn't pass up a chance to fight Dogs of War, Chaos Dwarves or the Slayer army either. Why should we?

And if you're sad that you won't find tournaments playing by your rules, then just set up your own tournament, its not that hard.

One thing that certainly won't accomplish anything is to vent your frustration on the internet. Noone cares, so the most you will achieve is to be ridiculed and scorned by some lass half way across the world.

The wonderful thing about being an individual, is that you can choose for yourself. The hard thing is that you have to take the responsibility for your own happiness.

Have fun :)

Damocles8
24-08-2010, 17:30
I think 8th opened up the tactical aspect of this game, now I'm worried about having units in reserve, or what I can do to counter your charge on the left flank of my army, instead of "oh I'll just edge back half an inch and be out of charge range." Sure I've seen the dice fail my opponents, friends, and myself, but MOST of the time, the random charge doesn't hurt too bad....

decker_cky
24-08-2010, 17:43
You have to consider also those that are invested in GW that would go out of their way to vote in favor of the new edition. I know several online gaming groups that do the same any time their group is mentioned on the internet.

Time will tell what players truely think about 8th edition.

Are you serious? The mysterious bogeymen coming out and voting for it being a big improvement? Over 80% of almost 300 votes have voted for it being an improvement, big or small. I voted big improvement, but acknowledge there's definitely some problems. Doesn't stop the overall gameplay from being head and shoulders above 7th.

And it's more than forum people. I see lots of players coming around who got bored with 7th and quit a year or two ago pulling out their armies again. Yup, most games have a moment of "that's a silly rule", but overall, the rules make for a better game in almost everyone I've seen out playing's opinion.


There are also a lot more bad players than good ones, interesting coincidence?
:D

And the thinly veiled insult to the 80%. I'm going to turn that around and say that I believe the people who can't find tactics in 8th must be the players without any tactical acumen. See how easy baseless accusations are to make. :rolleyes:

Kudzu
24-08-2010, 18:16
And the thinly veiled insult to the 80%. I'm going to turn that around and say that I believe the people who can't find tactics in 8th must be the players without any tactical acumen. See how easy baseless accusations are to make. :rolleyes:

So stating a observation is now considered an insult? Good to know.

No one is saying that 8th doesn't have tactics, 8th is just much less tactical. As it stands, if you can build a decent list you can just push forward, roll dice, and have a good chance of winning.

ewar
24-08-2010, 19:00
I'm just irritated that it could have been sooooo much better. They got so much right, and also a ******** wrong, all at the same time.

Don't you find it telling that the more games of 8th I've played, the more I've dropped interesting units from my list.

As time has gone on, I've dumped the cold ones, terradons, skirmish skinks, kroxigor and stegadons from my army. The most effective way to win I think with my lizardmen is just tonnes and tonnes of saurus. Backed up by the obligatory level 4 mage.

I WANTED infantry to be better - but at the expense of all my other units? Ummm. No. And the trouble with a massive infantry list is that basically... my game tactics involve walking forward and fighting whatever is in front of me. I'm not saying that is in any way all I'm capable of - I've just found it the most effective. Which makes me :(

There has been an injection of whacky fun, but already it's getting a little bit thin.

Zaszz
24-08-2010, 19:51
I'm just irritated that it could have been sooooo much better. They got so much right, and also a ******** wrong, all at the same time.

Don't you find it telling that the more games of 8th I've played, the more I've dropped interesting units from my list.

As time has gone on, I've dumped the cold ones, terradons, skirmish skinks, kroxigor and stegadons from my army. The most effective way to win I think with my lizardmen is just tonnes and tonnes of saurus. Backed up by the obligatory level 4 mage.

I WANTED infantry to be better - but at the expense of all my other units? Ummm. No. And the trouble with a massive infantry list is that basically... my game tactics involve walking forward and fighting whatever is in front of me. I'm not saying that is in any way all I'm capable of - I've just found it the most effective. Which makes me :(

There has been an injection of whacky fun, but already it's getting a little bit thin.

So what is your solution to a combined charge from a smaller force. Like say a force that involves a few infantry units along with monsters or chariots to chew through your units faster?

If you have all infantry in a massed line your really begging to lose to a mobile force ignoring half your line and only fighting 2-3 units.

ewar
24-08-2010, 21:07
So what is your solution to a combined charge from a smaller force. Like say a force that involves a few infantry units along with monsters or chariots to chew through your units faster?

If you have all infantry in a massed line your really begging to lose to a mobile force ignoring half your line and only fighting 2-3 units.

Stubborn saurus backed up with magic are proving pretty solid - no chariot will kill more than 3 or 4 at a time. I'm yet to fight an HPA, but I have flaming S5 attacks Temple Guard. Lore of life buffs, what more do you need?

Honestly, being able to fast reform negates most of the disadvantages infantry used to have.

Bac5665
24-08-2010, 21:08
Stubborn saurus backed up with magic are proving pretty solid - no chariot will kill more than 3 or 4 at a time. I'm yet to fight an HPA, but I have flaming S5 attacks Temple Guard. Lore of life buffs, what more do you need?

Honestly, being able to fast reform negates most of the disadvantages infantry used to have.

This. Outnumbering by units doesn't matter as much because is much harder to outmaneuver someone and its less useful to do so in the first place.

I'm NOT saying that outmaneuvering is useless, just less useful than in 7E. You can still do it, and win that way. But you don't have to, and it will work less often.

Lord Inquisitor
24-08-2010, 21:47
I'm just irritated that it could have been sooooo much better. They got so much right, and also a ******** wrong, all at the same time.
This is exactly my feeling. So close... but yet so far.


So what is your solution to a combined charge from a smaller force. Like say a force that involves a few infantry units along with monsters or chariots to chew through your units faster?

If you have all infantry in a massed line your really begging to lose to a mobile force ignoring half your line and only fighting 2-3 units.
Sounds great ... sounds really good. I want to play this game. But this game isn't 8th ed.

Trying to outmaneuver infantry is hard. Even cavalry can only move 16" when marching ... infantry can charge 16". There's no disadvantage in speculatively charging with a solid phalanx of infantry as failed charges only move you D6" forward, not really going to put you at risk of being out of position or flanked, etc.

The image of a long battle-line of infantry blocks being outmaneuvered by a MSU force is appealing - but at the 2000-3000 points range, we're not talking a huge number of units (my regular opponent only fields three conventional units in his army!), who are all within general/BSB range. In this set-up, they can take a flank charge, reform (with BSB) and beat the snot out of any flanker. Static combat resolution doesn't mean anything for flankers unless they're themselves really expensive large units, in which case they stack so heavily that it's effectively an autobreak - but that again discourages MSU.

Multiple charges, applying greater force to a subsection of the enemy is what wargaming is all about! Only, 8th edition penalises this, because if you try to make multiple charges against an enemy, the risk of one unit failing their charge increases. This is compounded by the rules for Steadfast, which discourage MSU approach as Steadfast can't be disrupted or "ganged up on." So if I charge a unit say worth 400 points and 6 ranks with two units worth 300 points and 3 ranks each, I should win, right? Problem is, there is a high probability of one of the units not making it in, in which case the matchup is 400 points of his versus 300 points of mine, which he will probably win. Even if flanked, he'll hold as stubborn (with BSB, etc), reform (with BSB, etc) and destroy the unit in his turn, reform to take on the other 300-point unit. Even if both units make it in, their ranks are not enough to break Steadfast until they kill half the unit - which gives the opponent time to bring more units into the scrap.

This is conciously or unconciously filtering through to army lists that are focussing on large units that can take the enemy head-on. Sure there are tactics - actually picking which unit fights which head-on is a skill and certainly if you can flank his deathstar with your deathstar it's all over ... but there is a great deal of basic tactics that seem to be penalised by 8th, by over-emphasising the value of line infantry.

If infantry charges were 2D6-pick-the-highest, if steadfast could be negated by disrupted ranks, if magic had an inbuilt risk of failure with more dice, if units could march further than they could charge, if terrain could have a happy medium between 7th's swampmires and 8th's smoke and mirages then we'd be looking at a really interesting game.

Maoriboy007
24-08-2010, 21:59
Are you serious? The mysterious bogeymen coming out and voting for it being a big improvement? Over 80% of almost 300 votes have voted for it being an improvement, big or small. I voted big improvement, but acknowledge there's definitely some problems. Doesn't stop the overall gameplay from being head and shoulders above 7th.

And it's more than forum people. I see lots of players coming around who got bored with 7th and quit a year or two ago pulling out their armies again. Yup, most games have a moment of "that's a silly rule", but overall, the rules make for a better game in almost everyone I've seen out playing's opinion.

Does the fact that 8th is "new" and "different" have much to do with its popularity at all.
I bought FFXIII just because it was the latest PS3 version of a series I had played for a long time.
Was it much different than when 6th rolled around from 5th? Did a lot of players disillusioned by the old hero-hammer editions start up again back then?
Many saw it as the "best thing to happen to the game in a long time" and a others saw it as "ruining a perfectly good game".
Now 6th and 7th (6ths evil clone) are reviled as terrible edition.
Is 8th so perfect that it will stand as a testiment of what the game should be or is it so flawed that it will quickly lose its lustre.
It is way too early to say either way really. My concern is that many seem too happy to espouse its shiny new improvements while remaining oblivious (or ignoring) to its obvious flaws.
I would probably side with the optimists, except for the fact that most of the time the flaws were unnessesary and incompetant.

Bac5665
24-08-2010, 22:04
If infantry charges were 2D6-pick-the-highest, if steadfast could be negated by disrupted ranks, if magic had an inbuilt risk of failure with more dice, if units could march further than they could charge, if terrain could have a happy medium between 7th's swampmires and 8th's smoke and mirages then we'd be looking at a really interesting game.

I'm getting pretty tired of just quoting your texts and saying "this" ;)

Seriously, as usual, your description on 8E almost exactly fits my biggest complaints.

Maoriboy007
24-08-2010, 22:11
I'm just irritated that it could have been sooooo much better. They got so much right, and also a ******** wrong, all at the same time.


This is exactly my feeling. So close... but yet so far.

Most of 8th edition detractors don't so much hate the game as share this opinion that GW fumbled the ball so close to the tryline (or Goalpost, Touchdown etc.)


Don't you find it telling that the more games of 8th I've played, the more I've dropped interesting units from my list.

While its nice that big blocks of infantry have a use in the game, part of fantasy is that Dragons and the like are a big part of the warhammer world, seeing them dissapear hurts the game rather than helps it.
Soon this game will be a clone of nepolionic wargames, a couple of big squares of toy soldiers moving towards each other.

Badger[Fr]
24-08-2010, 22:23
Soon this game will be a clone of neplionic wargames, a couple of big squares of toy soldiers moving towards each other.
I doubt it. What I know, however, is that my huge Clan Rats blocks won't win me a game on their own, and never had. Weapon Teams, Abominations, Rat Ogres, and Grey Seers are still needed.

If anything, it's is rather presumptuous to claim that huge Infantry blocks are overpowered, because the average rank-and-file S3 T3 units definitely aren't.

Ulfson
24-08-2010, 22:38
Does the fact that 8th is "new" and "different" have much to do with its popularity at all.
I bought FFXIII just because it was the latest PS3 version of a series I had played for a long time.
Was it much different than when 6th rolled around from 5th? Did a lot of players disillusioned by the old hero-hammer editions start up again back then?
Many saw it as the "best thing to happen to the game in a long time" and a others saw it as "ruining a perfectly good game".
Now 6th and 7th (6ths evil clone) are reviled as terrible edition.
Is 8th so perfect that it will stand as a testiment of what the game should be or is it so flawed that it will quickly lose its lustre.
It is way too early to say either way really. My concern is that many seem too happy to espouse its shiny new improvements while remaining oblivious (or ignoring) to its obvious flaws.
I would probably side with the optimists, except for the fact that most of the time the flaws were unnessesary and incompetant.

I'm a relatively intelligent and observant human being, like most people that collect wargames (cough), and one that has been collecting for a good 14 years now, across various platforms. I don't take things at face value in general, and I'm a skeptic - but, I also don't simply say something is inferior or worse because it is different or new, or because it comes from GW. And thus far, most of the things that people (and it would seem most of these people are the tourny-mental type, if I can generalise) are unhappy with, I think are brilliant changes.


While its nice that big blocks of infantry have a use in the game, part of fantasy is that Dragons and the like are a big part of the warhammer world, seeing them dissapear hurts the game rather than helps it.
Soon this game will be a clone of neplionic wargames, a couple of big squares of toy soldiers moving towards each other.

This, and other comments like it in this forum, I disagree with. I've used a fairly mixed list for my Dark Elves so far, and they are working fine. If my hydra is anything to go by (so far it had REALLY kicked ass), I'm thinking of adding a Dragon to my army to rush up the flank and just charge/attack/breathweapon in close combat/thunderstomp something into oblivion, alongside of course the attacks of the lord on top. Cold One Knights I've found to be indispensable, especially being I6. And my little unit of 18 Executioners is doing just fine by anchoring flanks near my CoB - in fact, now that they get to strike back after casualties they have been the bane of many small flanking units.

But regardless, this is why I personally enjoy 8th ed. And I understand that not everyone enjoys the same aspects of wargaming as I do and don't sync well with this new rule set. That doesn't bother me in the slightest, because my mates and I are loving the new edition, and that's all that really matters for me.

Commissar Vaughn
24-08-2010, 23:08
No one is saying that 7th doesn't have tactics, 7th is just much less tactical. As it stands, if you can build a decent list you can just push forward, roll dice, and have a good chance of winning.

FIXED.

In 8th such "tactics" will earn you a very messy draw at best.

J.P. Biff
24-08-2010, 23:09
:p
What we really need to wait for is what they do with the army books. Most editions looked perfectly fine with only the basic book and the first couple of books. But sooner or later a designer normally drops the ball.

I think this is the truest statement in this discussion. I think it will be up to the developers of future army books to determine the ultimate fate of 8th.


Tactically it is a step backwards...

Malorian, you and I must be cut from the same stone. It seems that 90% of your posts are exactly what I'm thinking at the time on the subject. :D Although I'm not having as much fun as a month ago when I first started with 8th.


I was thinking about that too. Before it actually came out I saw mostly positive anticipation, and this poll shows that's still there. But it's actual arrival seemed to bring all the very vocal haters out, seemingly more so than other new editions.

While there are negative comments in abundance there are an equal (or at least a few :p) number of positive points within the same replies. This is a "tell us how you feel" topic anyway.

Overall it seems that most that DISLIKE 8th are competitve players who are more interested in the chess aspect of it. The tactics, movement and overall outmaneuvering (sp?) of your opponent. While the fluff/fun gamers love the new edition. The tactics have regressed and those that didn't care about them don't care now! If you're having fun great, but those that like to have fun when they game have to understand that fun fluffwise isn't why all people play. Some loved the strategy involved in 7th and it just isn't there anymore.

Maoriboy007
25-08-2010, 00:00
;4937588']I doubt it. What I know, however, is that my huge Clan Rats blocks won't win me a game on their own, and never had. Weapon Teams, Abominations, Rat Ogres, and Grey Seers are still needed.

Will all the cool monsters be worth it, or will it just come down to Wizards Flamethrowers, guns and artillary next to a couple of (massive) blocks of infantry?
Maybe thats what the majority of gamers want, I don't know. The game might not be headed in that direction at all.


;4937588']If anything, it's is rather presumptuous to claim that huge Infantry blocks are overpowered, because the average rank-and-file S3 T3 units definitely aren't.

It would indeed be presumptuous to call infantry overpowered, which is why I didn't do so.


...................And thus far, most of the things that people (and it would seem most of these people are the tourny-mental type, if I can generalise) are unhappy with, I think are brilliant changes..

As an aside I never attended a tourney in my life :)
Some changes I like , some I don't mind , some I think are awful, thats just an opinion, no more valid than any other persons really.
It probably that I'm even more skeptical than you are, asking the question and seeing a parrellel betwwen much maligned previous editions.


This, and other comments like it in this forum, I disagree with. I've used a fairly mixed list for my Dark Elves so far, and they are working fine. If my hydra is anything to go by (so far it had REALLY kicked ass), I'm thinking of adding a Dragon to my army to rush up the flank and just charge/attack/breathweapon in close combat/thunderstomp something into oblivion, alongside of course the attacks of the lord on top. ......

If the new edition works for you and your army then thats fine more power to you :D
Would a well placed cannon/stonethrower shot or superspell (not hard to do) removing the dragon annoy you at all or do you consider it one of the fun parts of the game?
Admittedly its not much more than having the dragon demolishing entire units by itself like in 7th, but I see it more of a role reversal than an improvement.

Ulfson
25-08-2010, 01:37
As an aside I never attended a tourney in my life :)
Some changes I like , some I don't mind , some I think are awful, thats just an opinion, no more valid than any other persons really.
It probably that I'm even more skeptical than you are, asking the question and seeing a parrellel betwwen much maligned previous editions.

Haha, exactly. As was mentioned before, this IS a say how you feel thread - there is no right or wrong answer. Simply different outlooks. And I was generalising, I'm sure there are players out there who have never stepped foot in a tourney and have similar wargaming values to tourny-mentals.




If the new edition works for you and your army then thats fine more power to you :D
Would a well placed cannon/stonethrower shot or superspell (not hard to do) removing the dragon annoy you at all or do you consider it one of the fun parts of the game?
Admittedly its not much more than having the dragon demolishing entire units by itself like in 7th, but I see it more of a role reversal than an improvement.

Well, that was going to be my point, but you got there anyways - Dragons etc in 7th were disastrously good. They are still great, but can be mitigated by artillery/magic. So there is a buffer for them, which is good.
In my personal experience, the effectiveness of monsters depends on deployment, maneuvering and luck... which, as I've said before, is as it should be. A giant flying lizard breathing flames should be a prime target for artillery and magic:)

Justice And Rule
25-08-2010, 04:58
Well that puts a new light on things. :wtf:

What's the new light? I still play it, as there is a portion of my group who does. I never bought an army myself because I didn't see the point of investing in a rules system that I didn't think would change so drastically as it has.


Or an "Illusionary" army perhaps ?

Does it take away from any of my experiences with the game? Or are you just that desperate for a strawman because you don't know how to debate my points?


A view shared by some of us that have PURCHASED our own armies , and spent hours and hours painting and crafting them.Yes Gatsby, and they are opinions shared by some of those that have spent their money and spent their time collecting and painting their warhammer armies.

And this means...? My friends play with my modern 20's, but that doesn't make them any less of an expert on the rules we play with. My group tends to share armies and periods; the biggest thing we all have in common is that we all own a 40k army. The idea that I have to own an army to judge a system is foolish; even the guys who owned it said not to get an army until something changed. Amazingly enough, something did.


Perhaps for some players this is MORE THAN justa "debate" of "statistics" and rules.

Did you forget that I still play the game on a relatively regular basis, even if I don't have an army? Or when you were struggling with a way to try and discredit me that you completely forgot about the fact that I've played both systems (I've played Warhammer quite a bit since the new one came out, since our group actually wanted to play it rather than feeling obligated to because some guys had Warhammer)?


For those that have spent the time and money collecting and painting their armies as well as YEARS of experience playing those armies in local groups and tournaments that they have a much better perspective than you , and at least have an actual investment in it.

I have years of experience. I was simply smart enough to wait to invest until I found a ruleset of my liking. I did the same with my modern figures: I didn't buy them until I found a ruleset I liked. You wanna know how I found a ruleset I liked?

By playing games with other peoples' armies.


Regardless , for someone like you playing warhammer isn't any different than "debating" in a forum thread , after all is said and done , good or bad win or lose you have no REAL investment in either.
I find it both ironic and very telling that one of this forums biggest proponents of Warhammer 8th edition isn't invested in it , literally.:wtf:

Yeah, I wasn't invested in it because it was a poor ruleset which didn't fit what I was looking for. Why buy an army for a game I don't really enjoy playing?

Yes, I'm wasn't locked into Warhammer before. There is a reason for that; every time we played it, I (like most of my group) simply didn't find it that fun. Sometimes it was okay, but never really interested me on a mechanical level. By your logic, I can't judge Flames of War, either, despite having played it dozens of times, because I didn't own the armies I was playing with. Simply put: Amount of Investment doesn't matter. Experience does, and I have plenty.

To summarize: Your entire post was just trying to discredit me by seizing on one element (An element which does nothing to eliminate my experiences with 7th or my criticism) completely out of context and running with it. Way to show your colors, especially in your last paragraph.

Anyways, to people who actually have opinions I care about:

@Bac, you pretty much got down what I thought. You want precision, but in a good way: As you said, when you win you want it to be because you were more skillful. I'm a guy who likes fluidity; realism is great (as I'm a historical wargamer originally), but I like having to adapt to changing situations and things going wrong. You obviously like more tangible benefits with your moves; I'm okay if I do everything right and things can still go wrong. That fits my perception of a wargame more. For my wargaming group, it's another story. Again, I appreciate the posting, and I'm glad that you responded like you did.

@LordI: I love that you give examples and ideas, even if we disagree. I'm not going to start a multiple post battle (As we've already done that game), but just tossing out my respect again.

freddieyu
25-08-2010, 05:54
I believe that 8th edition is just another example of GW finding something that doesn't work and, BAM! Try to fix it twice over.

(This is a small peek into the design process of 8th Ed.)

Like Heavy Cavalry in 8th because in 7th they are the be all and end all for all the people on the forums. First lets have supporting attacks but nerf them for cavalry. So now cavalry are worse than they were. Now we'll take infantry and give them Steadfast. Good idea, yes. :rolleyes: Now cavalry are bloody useless.

What about monstrous infantry. No one takes them. Hmm lets make sure they'll get full attacks from the back rank. That'll make 'em better. But hell lets give them extra hits at the end of combat. Yeah! Way to go GW. Why the hell take cavalry when Monstrous Infantry are faster and hit an absolute **** tonne harder.

And Magic. Lets have a massive amount of spells with names of dubious quality, (Fulminating Flame Cage and Piercing Bolts of Burning:wtf:I'm looking at you.) and we'll just chuck in massive casting rolls. That'll help prevent people from dominating with magic. And then reduce the amount of power dice available. Because hells yes, We've just made magic bloody pointless. Too random to rely on. As a previous poster stated, Its just line up your armies and roll a crap tonne of dice. "I rolled 2 6's. BANG!!!" And instead of keeping magic relatively subtle and providing an interesting side game, NO!. It either does nothing or completely obliterates half a table. (I'm sorry I apologise for my blatant exaggeration.)

Oh and terrain. People don't use much terrain do they. So lets make it integral. It's now a rule to have terrain pieces but lets have it so they're fun terrain pieces. I know lets have a 1 in 6 chance that the forest is normal with the other 5 chances include having a powerful magic item in there or it wants to kill you. YEAH! THAT SOUNDS LIKE AN ABSOLUTE LOAD OF FUN! I WANT MY ARMY TO BE KILLED BY RAVENOUS TREES! BUT GUESS WHAT I PLAY WOOD ELVES! (I apologise again for this blatant rant.)

In conclusion anyone from GW, I hope you made it through my quite possibly insulting and derogatory post. Because I have something important to end with. If we wanted to have more 8 year olds to play against we'd just play 40k. You know the game that's designed for kids and other non-thinking automatons.

/rant

Yeah I voted minor regression because hey it could have been worse. There could be Space Marines. And I wouldn't put it past GW to release SM's later in 8th

tsk tsk shows me how ignorant you are of 40k...and of older versions of WHFB..(5th ed staff of nurgle anyone?)...

Regarding woodelves, it is high time they get a new book..Patience your time will come...at least in WHFB the cycle is more natural (even though it takes time)..in 40k you could have been a dark eldar or necron player (but their time is just around the corner!!)

Odominus
25-08-2010, 06:38
I like 7th ed WHF.

I like to play Risk.

I like early AD&D.

I like 8th ed WHF.

4 different games. Each stands on its own merits. Want to compare AD&D to Risk? Of course not. They are different games. Just like 7th and 8th ed. Its not rocket science=)

TheAmazingAntman
25-08-2010, 06:50
Trying to outmaneuver infantry is hard. Even cavalry can only move 16" when marching ... infantry can charge 16".

You're not serious...yes infantry CAN charge 16 inches, but 97% of the time they won't.

Outmaneuvering infantry with cavalry is still pretty dang easy.

decker_cky
25-08-2010, 06:54
You're not serious...yes infantry CAN charge 16 inches, but 97% of the time they won't.

Outmaneuvering infantry with cavalry is still pretty dang easy.

Yeah....had someone complaining that it's a problem that dwarfs can outcharge dragons. You know....that occurrence which happens less than 1/1000 times. It'll happen once...everyone will laugh, and life will go on.

Kal Taron
25-08-2010, 07:26
Just wanted to ask:
Why do some people claim that 8th requires less precise measuring and is less prone to discussions on distance?
So what's different between having 8" for charge range and arguing if it's 8.2" or not and roling 4" + 4 and then arguing?

IMHO 8th is offers many good ideas but there are some I really can't get myself to like:
1) Infantry charge range too random.
Not much of an issue for 1on1 fights between infantry units but it makes ganging up so much more painful and random. Not good if this was the kind of style you liked.

2) Too powerful magic spells.
Don't get me wrong, I know that it's normally quite difficult to get them off (unless you take the power scroll or Teclis or the book or some rerolls into concideration) and they don't neccessarily make the game a foregone conclusion but they have huge potential and depend mostly on luck and list building. YMMV and all that but I don't like it.

3) MR is strangly ineffective or has strange synergy effects.
What I mean is that it doesn't protect against some spells (Hexes, Instant Kill) because it's a Ward Save but it synergises greatly with other Ward Saves. This means that you don't get protection against some spells where you'd really want it and some combinations seem simply odd. Like Phoenix Guard with MR(2) having a 2+ ward against magic. Or the Mark of Tzeentch and Collar of Khorne (great and fluffy combo BTW) giving 4+ (IIRC might have been 5+).
I can see what they tried to fix (targetting) but I simply don't like that they didn't fix the issue but created a workaround with it's own issues. The issue was
a) it was sometimes unclear whether or not you were the "target" of the spell or if it really had one at all and
b) the rule could somewhat interpreted that your enemy could use your MR against your own buffs.
They just needed to clear up those two issues and MR would have been fine. It might have needed a new price tag but so does the new rule and some combos and dice adders and so on, so what?

4) Skirmishers
I know why they did it but IMO it's a cheap cop out and not done very well. Ranged skirmishers get something back in return but most melee ones are boned. (Unless they were really really good before like Dryads so they become only mediocre.)
IMO they should have cleared up the whole mess they created with their errata and gone back to the ways of the BRB of 7th where the way you charged skirmishers with most troops was mostly in the hands of the attacker so you simply couldn'd use them for abusive redirecting tricks. Were there any other problems with them?

Edit: Forgot something.
5) Bound Spells
Who's going to take them anymore and why are lower level ones now better? Why don't they simply treat their power level as a bonus to your roll instead of the target of it?

Avian
25-08-2010, 09:04
Just wanted to ask:
Why do some people claim that 8th requires less precise measuring and is less prone to discussions on distance?
So what's different between having 8" for charge range and arguing if it's 8.2" or not and roling 4" + 4 and then arguing?
Because before rolling it might not matter if it's 8 or 8.2". If you roll 7 or less or 9 or more, it's not relevant and therefore if you "gave" your opponent that fraction you have been generous for no loss.

When you are checking afterwards it is ALWAYS relevant. Being generous then is ALWAYS with a loss.

Thus people are more inclined to "give" a fraction beforehand than afterwards.

Of course, if one doesn't feel good about being generous when there is no loss to oneself, the above is irrelevant, though it might be a sign that one has some issues one needs working on. ;)

dragonet111
25-08-2010, 09:18
For us it's a major improvement. We almost give up on Warhammer in 7ed, the 8ed make us play again. The game is fun (as should be a game:D) and even if my daemons are still over-powered this is less crazy as it was in 7ed.

Idle Scholar
25-08-2010, 11:44
The distance and variability of random charges makes a mockery of force concentration and positional tactics.

The most powerful magic spells are situationaly too powerful.

Both these things are random but it's not fun when 2/5 or more of your games are decided by single magic spells or speculative long range charges.

Kal Taron
25-08-2010, 14:47
Because before rolling it might not matter if it's 8 or 8.2". If you roll 7 or less or 9 or more, it's not relevant and therefore if you "gave" your opponent that fraction you have been generous for no loss.

I don't see how you can regard this as true.
If I can argue that you are 8.2" away and therefore more than 8" you have to roll get a result of 9" therefore reducing your chances to reach me and vice versa.
So how is there no loss involved? One way or another one side has to "be generous" to reach an agreement and if this becomes too onesides it can result in a disadvantage.
This is absolutely nothing to do with random charges and all with sportsmanship. So I still fail to see the point.

scarletsquig
25-08-2010, 14:54
Major Improvement.

And my main reason is nothing to do with the rules specifically.

My main reason is that that the rules changes did a very good job of fixing the broken army books and restoring a better overall level of balance, both internal and external.

I was beyond sick of the Daemons/Dark Elves/Vampire Counts thing.

Valek
25-08-2010, 15:00
Massive improvement,

no more bickering about that half crap inch you can't move due to....
no more magic phase one sided action, but magic can change game plans in a pinch
elite infantry got better, like it should be, no more massive charge, game over crappiness

minor points:
Steadfast might be a bit to good for some horde armies, disruption of ranks ought to break that
Cannons and template weapons are a bit to grizzly effective, but that is learning to cope with it.
First turn op magic spells might be a bit common, (powerscroll ban... play it to though)

Conclusion: 8th makes for fast, fun and quite challenging games, a lot of killing going on which is great.

UberBeast
25-08-2010, 15:42
Major Improvement.

And my main reason is nothing to do with the rules specifically.

My main reason is that that the rules changes did a very good job of fixing the broken army books and restoring a better overall level of balance, both internal and external.

I was beyond sick of the Daemons/Dark Elves/Vampire Counts thing.

You're among the majority here even if many people try to justify this opinion by attacking the 7th edition's core rules instead of the poor army design.

That being said I don't think the 8th has balanced things quite as well as people think. There are still huge imbalances, and I have a feeling we will start seeing them soon when the 'Ard Boyz tournament finally hits the circuit and people start copying their armies and opinion on those armies off of the new "power" lists.

And as a pet peve, I really think people blew the whole Daemons/DE/VC thing out of proportion. I played my orcs & goblins infantry heavy throughout the entire 6th and 7th editions, and while the above armies were challenging they were typically one trick ponies and I still managed to place in the top 3 at half of the tournaments I went to and in the top half at the rest (one time I even came in second to another orc player).

I think a lot of the gripe with these armies came from a circular reasoning as follows: These armies are the best because they are the most commonly seen armies at tournaments, If I want to win I have to take only these armies to tournaments.

decker_cky
25-08-2010, 16:43
I don't see how you can regard this as true.
If I can argue that you are 8.2" away and therefore more than 8" you have to roll get a result of 9" therefore reducing your chances to reach me and vice versa.
So how is there no loss involved? One way or another one side has to "be generous" to reach an agreement and if this becomes too onesides it can result in a disadvantage.
This is absolutely nothing to do with random charges and all with sportsmanship. So I still fail to see the point.

You both discuss it beforehand, and it's usually pretty simple. "Is that 8 inches?" Also you don't need to factor in a sketchy wheel (yeah, it's 8.2", but if I had wheeled back there it wouldn't have mattered so I should be in).

Nobody has to be generous because distances are easier to measure without factoring a wheel. Measurement is before you know it'll be a factor, so you can check.

I haven't heard a single distance argument in my gaming group since 8th edition started.

Blinder
25-08-2010, 16:46
I don't see how you can regard this as true.
If I can argue that you are 8.2" away and therefore more than 8" you have to roll get a result of 9" therefore reducing your chances to reach me and vice versa.
So how is there no loss involved? One way or another one side has to "be generous" to reach an agreement and if this becomes too onesides it can result in a disadvantage.
This is absolutely nothing to do with random charges and all with sportsmanship. So I still fail to see the point.

In 6th/7th you were guaranteed to have that discussion. In 8th you have a 14% chance of having that discussion- that's about the odds of you rolling an 8" charge. Any other charge distance and it doesn't matter. Now the only time .2" matters is if you're trying for a desperate max-range charge and you need to see if the enemy is 16.1" away or 15.9" away. With a roughly 0.03% chance they'll make it (better on a cav max-range charge, but not *that* much better) I'd imagine "most" people would let the unit try for the charge. Also a big reduction in potential argument comes from the closest/closest measurement- no more arguing about how much movement a wheel takes up (or to what angle you have to wheel). Once you know you have the range it's a matter of making sure you only have to wheel once, and then you're in.

So, it isn't so much that it makes the old issues impossible, but that it seriously cuts down on how often they'll come up and the potential impact they can have if one player gives ground.

Lord Inquisitor
25-08-2010, 16:55
I haven't heard a single distance argument in my gaming group since 8th edition started.

Yeah. I remember some really tough and even heated distance calculations (particularly involving units that just clip terrain). 8th lets you measure very accurately, down to mm precision impossible before. One of the things I love about 8th, charge measuring is so critical and the mechanism is fast effective and easy to be precise about. Shame about the randomness of the charges themselves.

Kal Taron
25-08-2010, 17:48
@decker_cky and Blinder
Wait, so is it easier to agree beforehand or afterwards? Because you're both essentially advocating two contrary approaches as better than before.
The thing with agreeing beforehand is that certain distances are quite important how you agree on them. If I have 4" move and you talk me into it that the distance is a little bit more than 11" my chance to make the charge just dropped by 0.1667.
While when you discuss it afterwards the questionable rolls tend to be less frequent (depending on the charge distance of course) but the arguments tend to be more heated.

Now, I'm not saying that it didn't get easier in 8th but the random charges and premeasuring have nothing to do with it. Not having to weel is a factor and no modifiers for terrain another. Those were always big problems IMO. Esp. terrain, but the method of measurement not so much.

Avian
25-08-2010, 18:09
@decker_cky and Blinder
Wait, so is it easier to agree beforehand or afterwards? Because you're both essentially advocating two contrary approaches as better than before.
The thing with agreeing beforehand is that certain distances are quite important how you agree on them. If I have 4" move and you talk me into it that the distance is a little bit more than 11" my chance to make the charge just dropped by 0.1667.
That is correct, it drops by 16.7%. But if you got talked out of it afterwards, the chance of making the charge would be dropping by 100%.

The difference between 16.7% and 100% is why agreeing beforehand is easier. ;)

decker_cky
25-08-2010, 18:27
With premeasurement allowed, why would you not talk it out beforehand? As mentioned, the biggie is not having to measure wheels. Whip out the tape measure and check the distance. If it's close, look a little closer. If it's too hard to tell clearly (and the 0.2" bandied about shouldn't lead to arguments), then 4+ it.

Then you declare your charge. You and your opponent know what you need to roll. Then your opponent declares his charge reaction. And then you roll the dice.

Heck...you could even move further back and your opponent measures when they move their unit up. "I'm moving this unit just outside 8 inches so you'll need 9 to charge." A quick check and you can ask them to adjust it if it looks like it's going to cause problems.

In 7th, you tactically had to work with those fractions of an inch because that's how you got charges. Now you're a distance away that you both should know.

Hragged
25-08-2010, 18:31
Major improvement IMO. Love it!

Rosstifer
26-08-2010, 05:34
Anyone want to run the numbers and see what percent think 8th is better?

I also think 8th is better, which means it is, because I say that with all the arrogance and conviction of a 17yr old, and we are never wrong! :shifty:

Seriously though, 8th rocks.

Just did it and 82.3% prefer 8th to some degree, 5.7% are being horribly neutral, and 12% don't like it.

Obviously 8th is an improvement.

Gatsby
26-08-2010, 05:41
Anyone want to run the numbers and see what percent think 8th is better?

I also think 8th is better, which means it is, because I say that with all the arrogance and conviction of a 17yr old, and we are never wrong! :shifty:

Seriously though, 8th rocks.

The problem is that its still to early, the novelty is still there, really this thread should have waited for the first or second army book THEN asked the question is it better.

Kudzu
26-08-2010, 06:04
Anyone want to run the numbers and see what percent think 8th is better?

I also think 8th is better, which means it is, because I say that with all the arrogance and conviction of a 17yr old, and we are never wrong! :shifty:

Seriously though, 8th rocks.

Just did it and 82.3% prefer 8th to some degree, 5.7% are being horribly neutral, and 12% don't like it.

Obviously 8th is an improvement.

You're forgetting the part where it's a small and select sample size of players (300-ish people who both visit Warseer and vote in polls does not a good cross-section make). As Gatsby pointed out, it's far too early too tell-- I remember the rave reviews Windows Vista got in the first few months too...

UberBeast
26-08-2010, 06:09
Honestly I remember when 7th came out and people were all thrilled about how they "fixed" all the problems with 6th edition. There was also a lot less complaining and quitting as the changes weren't nearly so dramatic and unprecidented.

They also predicted that cavalry was going to go way up in cost because of how good it was in 7th and because early indicators (orc boar boys) were so horribly expensive that it only made sense they planned to keep things balanced through the army books.

Monodominant
26-08-2010, 06:27
by the way how can people say that flank charges are no longer effective in 8th?

have you read the part where you only get attacked by the first line of guys?

I am asking cause in 7th I used to send my 6 strong Dragon Princes up a flank while sending something else up front... the effect was brutal.

Now I essentially do the same and by the time we are finished the enemy unit is ussually losing steadfast anyway since the white lions/phoenxi guard have killed alot of guys on the front (but with some casualties) and the dragon princes have killed alot of guys at the flank and taken no casualties!

so seriously, who here prefers to attack with 6 man cavalry in the front rather than in the flank and why does he believe that flanking lost its importance? Because you wont autobreak the opponent? is that it?

PS.

Love the 8th although it means I have to buy a few more elite unit models... but guess it just looks cooler :D

AtmaTheWanderer
26-08-2010, 06:38
Out of the 11 people currently playing in the same league as myself, not a single one of us does not feel the 8th edition rules are a colossal improvement over 7th, and the only rules issue we've had a combined dislike of is the no more half points for killing a unit to under half.

decker_cky
26-08-2010, 07:37
You're forgetting the part where it's a small and select sample size of players (300-ish people who both visit Warseer and vote in polls does not a good cross-section make). As Gatsby pointed out, it's far too early too tell-- I remember the rave reviews Windows Vista got in the first few months too...

The size isn't actually a real problem. 300 people is within roughly 5% of the real value (with a 95% confidence level). The problem is whether it's representative, and as you pointed out, it's not.

And I don't think Windows Vista ever got a single compliment from anyone. It was a failure from the concept level.

elvinltl
26-08-2010, 07:43
The 8th Edition Codex ALONE is a major improvement.

But the 8th Edition overall gameplay is an Epic Failure considering how GWS failed to at least update all existing codexes to a competant level to keep up with the new 8th Edition rulebook. It is not a matter of game design but rather business protocols.

I doubted they ever did any real testing with all the armies considering how High Elves with army wide ASF becomes godly in closecombat. Even without playing the actualy game, its obvious that the new 8th Ed rulebook broke the game... at least until they revise all the codexes to keep up with the 8th Edition. (And this will take a LONG LONG LONG time. :/)

NixonAsADaemonPrince
26-08-2010, 11:11
The problem is that its still to early, the novelty is still there, really this thread should have waited for the first or second army book THEN asked the question is it better.

I agree to an extent that this is still very early, but I think it was still worth it just to find out the general feelings at the moment, so then we can see how 8ths popularity (with the voting Warseer community, obviously) changes (or not, as the case may be) as the months go by.

chamelion 6
26-08-2010, 12:57
School's got me too busy to get too involved with these discussions anymore, but....

I think it's time for some intellectual honesty here. This poll, taken on the whole is as valid as any poll can be. It is as accurate a measure of those in the WFB playing roup that have strong feelings toward the 7th / 8th issue. We can all safely assume the majority are indifferent to the debate and are neutral.

The survey group is consistent, it's voluntary, and it's relavent to the topic.

Add to that EVERY survey on this topic has consistently yeilded the same exact numbers and you have a pretty iron clad survey result. This kind of consistency would make a political pollster wet themselves with uncontrolled excitement.

There is no way around it, the overwhelming majority of people with strong opinions on the topic prefer 8th.

Unless somone can provide a hard bit of evidence to the contrary, the people trying to bring a cloud over this thing are simply grasping at smoke.

Phaedrus
26-08-2010, 13:07
The problem is that its still to early, the novelty is still there, really this thread should have waited for the first or second army book THEN asked the question is it better.

We can always make another one in a few months. Its not as though by voting in this poll you exhaust your warseer poll quota. And even if the percentages should change drastically in each subsequent poll, that does not negate this one as being premature. Rather, it would show an interesting trend that we will all likely interpret in different ways (largely biased by our personal feelings) and argue about.

Bac5665
26-08-2010, 13:54
School's got me too busy to get too involved with these discussions anymore, but....

I think it's time for some intellectual honesty here. This poll, taken on the whole is as valid as any poll can be. It is as accurate a measure of those in the WFB playing roup that have strong feelings toward the 7th / 8th issue. We can all safely assume the majority are indifferent to the debate and are neutral.

The survey group is consistent, it's voluntary, and it's relavent to the topic.

Add to that EVERY survey on this topic has consistently yeilded the same exact numbers and you have a pretty iron clad survey result. This kind of consistency would make a political pollster wet themselves with uncontrolled excitement.

There is no way around it, the overwhelming majority of people with strong opinions on the topic prefer 8th.

Unless somone can provide a hard bit of evidence to the contrary, the people trying to bring a cloud over this thing are simply grasping at smoke.

This poll is an internet voluntary response poll. It is in every stats book written since 1998 as an example of an invalid poll. Polls are only valid if they are a random sample; this poll is self-selecting of people who post on warseer and who feel strongly enough to respond to a poll. As an obvious way to understand why this invalidates the poll, consider this; people who hate the new game enough to abandon the hobby including this forum are not represented, whether they be 1%, 5% or 80%. This poll is by scientific definition, not valid.

Now, that doesn't mean that its wrong, but it could be and as actual evidence, its meaningless.

Dead Man Walking
26-08-2010, 13:59
Personally the rules for terrain are not sitting well with me. In the last tourney I watched as a black orc unit with grimgor barreled 13 inches through a forest that was 8 inches wide and caused 21 wounds to a 20 strong unit of saurus. He lost 3 in the dangerous terrain to 1 rolls out of 26 models.

Then if you use thier silly rules almost every piece of terrain has a special rule which my opponent and I forgot about as we were playing. Having 5 pieces of terrain with crazy rules makes no sense. There should be a chance of 1 piece of terrain being special but not every single one.

Brother Kite
26-08-2010, 14:00
After reading through 6th edition 7th and 8th i gotta say im looking forward to playing 8th.
Now i am somewhat a new player i did orginally start at 6th edition but because i left school for college i lost friends who played this to me meant there was no point finishing my army. Coming back to warhammer i have found a renewed creativity i thought i had lost years ago i have almost all my army painted and am ready to throw out a game against my flatmate (dark elves vs orcs and goblins gona kill iz pointy ears), so my opinion is not as great but the way i saw it from reading the books, reading posts and garnering information from areas i have just a couple of things.

1 im not really a fan of measuring the distance for warmachine weapons- lobbers and cannons i feel this would be better being random because obviously in real life people used to have markers to show the crew there range its was guesswork. However thats a small note aside

2 The tactics i feel are a lot better in 8th. I mean in 7th you charge and usually the enemy unit flees. Lets be honest you wouldnt choose to flee in a war from a couple of units lost, so seeing an actual battle of troops to see who wins is fair i think. as said by some rules like quick reform and such have benefits because your opponent has to think his away around those rules eg. the hold troops down with bog standard troops and smash them from the flanks tactic. Of course your presented with risk if your opponent is coming for you and you reform too soon or you dont and pray you can weather the storm.

thats about all from my main view point having read through a couple of rulebooks but im sure more advanced players would know better

Phaedrus
26-08-2010, 17:45
consider this; people who hate the new game enough to abandon the hobby including this forum are not represented, whether they be 1%, 5% or 80%.

It would be relatively easy to gauge the impact of this particular concern. This is a web forum and I am certain it tracks the activity of its members. We simply need the moderators to tell us if there has been a drop in traffic among members whose join dates antedate 8th ed.


Now, that doesn't mean that its wrong, but it could be and as actual evidence, its meaningless.

I think you use that word too freely. A methodological concern does not make something "meaningless." Especially if that concern turns out to have had little impact. Now I do agree that it is important to take note of that concern, and to treat the results with caution.

chamelion 6
26-08-2010, 17:51
This poll is an internet voluntary response poll. It is in every stats book written since 1998 as an example of an invalid poll. Polls are only valid if they are a random sample; this poll is self-selecting of people who post on warseer and who feel strongly enough to respond to a poll. As an obvious way to understand why this invalidates the poll, consider this; people who hate the new game enough to abandon the hobby including this forum are not represented, whether they be 1%, 5% or 80%. This poll is by scientific definition, not valid.

Now, that doesn't mean that its wrong, but it could be and as actual evidence, its meaningless.

But we're not trying to get a random sampling of the general populatiuon. We are specifically trying to get the opinions of those people:

1. playing the game
2. having a strong opinion of the two editions


All polls, regardless of who or how they are taken, are ultimately voluntary. The problem I have with a lot of "scientific polling" is it really isn't and it attempts to exclude and alter depending on what you are looking for.* The first retreat of everyone not liking results is to invalidate the sampling and question the science. This is a good example. This poll represents the opinions of those on this site regarding the editions in questions. It is consistently repeatable, it's been done over and over with amazingly consistent results.

I can, with all confidcence, make the claim that of the people playing the game and visiting this site with reasonable regularity, 80% of them prefer 8th over 7th. What does that mean? Only what it says. How many left the game and never bothered to answer? Who cares? They are no longer playing the game and their opinion does not matter for the purposes of this poll. How many people thought this was silly and ignored it? Who cares? They are not part of the group the poll is focused at.

Understand the group you are polling and the numbers are relevant. If you want to know what the opinions of a small group of gamers in an LGS is you ask em. The poll is 100% accurate because it is 100% inclusive. So do we dismiss it based on the fact the sampling group was not diverse enough or too small?

The fact that the numbers are repetedly consistant within a fraction of a percentage point gives the data validity. The conclusion you draw may not be, but that's a different issue.

*It is a given scientific truth that you cannot oberserve without altering what you are observing.

UberBeast
26-08-2010, 18:40
I think some of us are getting way to scientific about this poll. (to the point where they are starting to look silly) There wasn't ever any intent to specify who was answering the poll, or any effort to plan for people not playing the game who won’t even see the poll. It is simply what it is.

I think the only valid thing that can be claimed is that the majority of people who answered the poll like the 8th edition. It can't and shouldn't be applied in any other way.

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 21:31
The problem is that its still to early, the novelty is still there, really this thread should have waited for the first or second army book THEN asked the question is it better.

Not really. Then you can just claim "armybook creep" like those who prefer 7th Edition. Right now, we are getting a better look at the actual game mechanics before GW starts modifying them with new Army Books.

Frankly, I think novelty has been wearing off for a little while now. How many games have most people played? 10? 20? I'd think reaching around 15-20 games would be the time where novelty starts to wear off.

Kudzu
26-08-2010, 21:39
Not really. Then you can just claim "armybook creep" like those who prefer 7th Edition. Right now, we are getting a better look at the actual game mechanics before GW starts modifying them with new Army Books.

Frankly, I think novelty has been wearing off for a little while now. How many games have most people played? 10? 20? I'd think reaching around 15-20 games would be the time where novelty starts to wear off.

That's been barely enough to make sure we've found all the new rule interactions and to get a feel for how to adjust our army lists. Just wait until the new power lists emerge!

Gatsby
26-08-2010, 21:50
Not really. Then you can just claim "armybook creep" like those who prefer 7th Edition. Right now, we are getting a better look at the actual game mechanics before GW starts modifying them with new Army Books.

The army books are a RATHER important part of the game, i mean they only include the rules for each army. As they are DESIGNED for for play in each edition they are really what gives, takes away or maintains balance in the BRB. Currently there are no 8th ed army books, and yes army book power creep COULD have an impact and i suspect it will. Your trying to take the BRB on its own, well without the army books you cant gauge it.


Frankly, I think novelty has been wearing off for a little while now. How many games have most people played? 10? 20? I'd think reaching around 15-20 games would be the time where novelty starts to wear off.

I disagree, I don't think the novelty has worn off yet I'd give it awhile at least until a month or so after the first armybook.

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 21:53
That's been barely enough to make sure we've found all the new rule interactions and to get a feel for how to adjust our army lists. Just wait until the new power lists emerge!

... :eyebrows::eyebrows:

Are you serious? After 10 games, you should have a good ideas of how the rules interact. There might be obscure combination or such, but the overall idea of how the rules work and interact with each other should be down. Same with army lists; after 10 games, you should have a good idea of what works and what doesn't, even if it isn't completely fine-tuned.

I'm not asking for how long it should take you to completely master the rules and your army, to know everything down to the slightest detail. But to know where you stand, and for novelty to be gone from a game? 15-20 games should be enough.

Spyral
26-08-2010, 22:03
This is too soon. What about those of us waiting for the IoB to get the small book.. I've not played 8th yet. I could find it rubbish but for all intents and purposes what I've seen aside from magic is good. I'm afraid that the silliness of the magic will 'ruin' the game. (And I play Lizards) But WE seemed nerfed.. Moar challenge though..

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 22:07
The army books are a RATHER important part of the game, i mean they only include the rules for each army. As they are DESIGNED for for play in each edition they are really what gives, takes away or maintains balance in the BRB.

Indeed. However, like you've argued with 7th, army creep isn't indicative of the rules themselves. Are we changing standards here?


Currently there are no 8th ed army books, and yes army book power creep COULD have an impact and i suspect it will. Your trying to take the BRB on its own, well without the army books you cant gauge it.

It's simple: gauge how much you like the game before any creep can be actually put into the game by the army books. We are getting a look at what the rules should look like; I'd argue this is the best time to judge them.


I disagree, I don't think the novelty has worn off yet I'd give it awhile at least until a month or so after the first armybook.

How do you define novelty, then? Because I don't see how "novelty" is at all dependent on the release of an army book. It's the time when you understand the rules and can get a fair idea of how you feel on them. I don't understand the logic of waiting for the first army book, because we'll then be stuck in the novelty of the army book, which will influence what people think of the rules, is more legitimate.

I'd argue people probably have enough games now (going on about a 1 1/2 months in) to get where they really stand, or at least a close approximation of it. By now they probably have enough games and enough familiarity with the rules to not be completely surprised by certain interactions in the rules. Some people might change their minds a little bit, but if you are expecting tons of people to suddenly do an about-face, I think you're dreaming.

Kudzu
26-08-2010, 22:33
... :eyebrows::eyebrows:

Are you serious? After 10 games, you should have a good ideas of how the rules interact. There might be obscure combination or such, but the overall idea of how the rules work and interact with each other should be down. Same with army lists; after 10 games, you should have a good idea of what works and what doesn't, even if it isn't completely fine-tuned.

I'm not asking for how long it should take you to completely master the rules and your army, to know everything down to the slightest detail. But to know where you stand, and for novelty to be gone from a game? 15-20 games should be enough.

10 games isn't even enough to take a single army up against every army book out there. One game per book doesn't even insure that you'll see how one book interacts with another in it's entirety.

Not all of us like to make snap judgments like "Well, I did fine in 3 games, it must mean that 8th is perfectly balanced!"

Gatsby
26-08-2010, 22:33
Indeed. However, like you've argued with 7th, army creep isn't indicative of the rules themselves. Are we changing standards here?

No i agree with power creep ruining 7th, but i feel even WITH the power creep 7th is still a better system than 8th is now.

who knows, it they make the 8th ed army books good enough my opinion of 8th may change :)


It's simple: gauge how much you like the game before any creep can be actually put into the game by the army books. We are getting a look at what the rules should look like; I'd argue this is the best time to judge them.

how can you do that when all you have are outdated army books designed for an outdated BRB?


How do you define novelty, then? Because I don't see how "novelty" is at all dependent on the release of an army book. It's the time when you understand the rules and can get a fair idea of how you feel on them. I don't understand the logic of waiting for the first army book, because we'll then be stuck in the novelty of the army book, which will influence what people think of the rules, is more legitimate.

A lot of people STILL haven't played, as mentioned in the above post by Spyral. Many people are waiting for the Starter set before they start playing.


I'd argue people probably have enough games now (going on about a 1 1/2 months in) to get where they really stand, or at least a close approximation of it. By now they probably have enough games and enough familiarity with the rules to not be completely surprised by certain interactions in the rules. Some people might change their minds a little bit, but if you are expecting tons of people to suddenly do an about-face, I think you're dreaming.

see above argument. Its not uncommon for people to answer polls before coming to an educated decision.

Amnar
26-08-2010, 22:37
10 games isn't even enough to take a single army up against every army book out there. One game per book doesn't even insure that you'll see how one book interacts with another in it's entirety.

Not all of us like to make snap judgments like "Well, I did fine in 3 games, it must mean that 8th is perfectly balanced!"

You don't need to face each army to determine if you like the rules or not...by game 5 you should have a good idea of which edition you prefer.

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 23:02
10 games isn't even enough to take a single army up against every army book out there. One game per book doesn't even insure that you'll see how one book interacts with another in it's entirety.

If we are going to do that, are we going to take different builds into account? Different styles of players? Different scenarios? What about new army books? Should we wait until all the army books are released?

Just because you have not seen how all the armies interact does not mean that you don't understand how the rules work, and have a reasonable idea of how they will.


Not all of us like to make snap judgments like "Well, I did fine in 3 games, it must mean that 8th is perfectly balanced!"

I'm sorry that I don't need to fight every build of every army against every other army to judge an edition's rules.:rolleyes:

But just because you need a far greater amount of games to feel you've judge something accurately does not mean everyone does. I'd say what you are talking about is extreme overkill.


No i agree with power creep ruining 7th, but i feel even WITH the power creep 7th is still a better system than 8th is now.

who knows, it they make the 8th ed army books good enough my opinion of 8th may change :)

I suppose I can only hope. ;)


how can you do that when all you have are outdated army books designed for an outdated BRB?

Because the rulebook was designed to take them into account? While the rules are different, they are still designed to take current army books into accounts (whether through the book or FAQs). While rules can change, they were certainly taken into account.


A lot of people STILL haven't played, as mentioned in the above post by Spyral. Many people are waiting for the Starter set before they start playing.

There are some people, but I would hesitate to say "a lot". Of course we are without any accurate means to measure, but I think it's reasonable to say most people have at least tried 8th in some way.


see above argument. Its not uncommon for people to answer polls before coming to an educated decision.

The problem is that it's not a reasonable assumption to make without proof. There are certainly going to be a few, but they are not the rule; they are the exception. We also have no way of knowing which way they are influencing things, for or against. Unless we have some sort of proof to this, I don't think it's a reasonable judgment to make.

There is no assurance that people will have played by the first army book, either. I don't see how that timetable is reasonable when "novelty" wears off by playing the game, not by looking at the release schedule. There will be some people who judge it without playing it, but that's true of anything and is not a good argument for waiting.

Gatsby
26-08-2010, 23:29
Because the rulebook was designed to take them into account? While the rules are different, they are still designed to take current army books into accounts (whether through the book or FAQs). While rules can change, they were certainly taken into account.

As many people have pointed out, and correct me if im wrong that you yourself argued, that 8th is a completely different game than 7th. so the codex's are essentially for a different game. and using that philosophy, id love to use my Necrons for a fantasy game, nothing like a Monolith to deal with a stank. My Necrons use an almost identical platform, add a movement value and my Necrons become a pretty competitive list.
Without using codex's written for the new system there is no fair and unbiased way to compare the two.


There are some people, but I would hesitate to say "a lot". Of course we are without any accurate means to measure, but I think it's reasonable to say most people have at least tried 8th in some way.

The problem is that it's not a reasonable assumption to make without proof. There are certainly going to be a few, but they are not the rule; they are the exception. We also have no way of knowing which way they are influencing things, for or against. Unless we have some sort of proof to this, I don't think it's a reasonable judgment to make.

There is no assurance that people will have played by the first army book, either. I don't see how that timetable is reasonable when "novelty" wears off by playing the game, not by looking at the release schedule. There will be some people who judge it without playing it, but that's true of anything and is not a good argument for waiting.


but we have no means to gauge that without adding a QnA section to the poll

have you played a game of fantasy?
how many games of fantasy have you played?

Justice And Rule
26-08-2010, 23:55
As many people have pointed out, and correct me if im wrong that you yourself argued, that 8th is a completely different game than 7th.

So you are really going to base your entire argument the exact wording of something that I don't believe I've said, or taking what I've said out of context?

I've said that the game plays completely differently. This is because of changes in rules mechanics. But they were obviously still made with the previous rules in mind, otherwise the previous army books wouldn't work. There are even detractors of 8th talking about how the armies are better balanced throughout the races right now. How would that even be conceivable if the army books were not taken into account at all.

This is a weak argument.


so the codex's are essentially for a different game. and using that philosophy, id love to use my Necrons for a fantasy game, nothing like a Monolith to deal with a stank. My Necrons use an almost identical platform, add a movement value and my Necrons become a pretty competitive list.
Without using codex's written for the new system there is no fair and unbiased way to compare the two.

Considering the original premise of this hasty generalization of what I said was about as ill-conceived as Alric's attack on my for "not owning my own army", you might want to rethink your strategy here.

Can you actually address my gripe here, which is why we are waiting until a single army book comes out when novelty is not based on time but by how much you've played it, regardless of how you've played it? How about how if we wait until an army book comes out, shouldn't we wait for the novelty of the army books new, added mechanics wears off before we can get a true judgment?

If you think this is a little premature, fine. But I don't see how one can expect a truly massive drop-off of support in 8th. Nothing seems to indicate as such.


but we have no means to gauge that without adding a QnA section to the poll

Now you are just trying too hard to make the poll seem illegitimate. There's no reason to assume that the majority of people are judging it without having played at least a few games if not more, considering it's been out almost two months and this is a Warhammer forum. Unless you have some real proof that the majority (not just one person who may or may not have actually voted), I don't see why this is even an issue.

The only reason I see you bringing this up is because the poll does not fit with your view of the system. Perhaps you need to come to terms that you are currently in the minority.


have you played a game of fantasy?
how many games of fantasy have you played?

About 16. Since the new rules came out, I've played at least twice a week (Normally once early on Saturdays, and once on Thursdays, which has become our Warhammer day for the next couple months until our job schedules change). I also happen to be closer friends with the Warhammer players in our group, so I've played a few more times on other days in pick-up games.

Do you play fantasy? Or is it too much to make that assumption based on your posting your opinion of 8th Edition in the Warhammer section of the site?

chamelion 6
27-08-2010, 02:02
Well, I for one, find the poll interesting and relevant. It's like a snapshot. It's all the more interesting because it's consistent with similar polls on other sites....

It will be interesting to see if the release of the smaller rulebook changes the numbers. I'm sure it will. And I'm sure the first of the new army books will see some change.

I see this as a baseline and I'm watching which way it goes.

But just for the record... Even if it tanks, which I personally doubt, I'm still loving 8th. I don't really care how popular it is, or isn't.

ChaosVC
27-08-2010, 05:50
I find it interesting that the poll is overwhelmingly in favour of a better edition yet most of the posts are negative. Shows whiners are more vocal than happy gamers in general.

Did you just whine about whiners? Good job lol!!!

NecronBob
27-08-2010, 12:15
The general consensus up here is that 8th edition is a great improvement. Now, we have had conversations about the things we don't like, but overall, it's much better than 7th. The big indicator for me is that since 8th edition came out, our gaming group has gone from 3 players to 7. Some of that might be newness and hype, but one of those players despised past iterations of WFB but seems happy with 8th so far.

Metal_ash
27-08-2010, 19:35
I went for the poll answer..Hell no!
The new rules have even made me quitt the game cause they have destroyed the game totaly.
I can not even say how much i hate the new rules here, all from how you move to how you fight and the magic. Most new rules seems to be based on GW wanting you to buy more and more of their figures and play bigger and bigger points battles so they can sit there an count their money without even care one bit about their players.
And yeah..i have played fantasy battles for 17 years and always played the last edition and thought it fun..but this! Heavy cavalry that is used as flankers! cause thats the only way they can ever beat a hord...in my world heavy cavalary was the spear tip and sledge hammer of what ever army they was fighting for.

DisasterMaster
27-08-2010, 20:52
And yeah..i have played fantasy battles for 17 years and always played the last edition and thought it fun..but this! Heavy cavalry that is used as flankers! cause thats the only way they can ever beat a hord...in my world heavy cavalary was the spear tip and sledge hammer of what ever army they was fighting for.

Wow, no matter how many people point out why cavalry was nerfed no one ever lets this drop. Cavalry was nerfed because in 7th because it went in a dircetion you wanted it too, destroyed infantry so badly that they were guarenteed to flee (without taking a single hit back), and then overrun. Cue repeat.

It is a dumb reason to hate 8th because your pretty ponies can't function as the doom lazers you want them too. Beat hordes with warmachines. Or spells. Those are counters for hordes. Horses are used for other things now.

Metal_ash
28-08-2010, 00:00
Wow, no matter how many people point out why cavalry was nerfed no one ever lets this drop. Cavalry was nerfed because in 7th because it went in a dircetion you wanted it too, destroyed infantry so badly that they were guarenteed to flee (without taking a single hit back), and then overrun. Cue repeat.

It is a dumb reason to hate 8th because your pretty ponies can't function as the doom lazers you want them too. Beat hordes with warmachines. Or spells. Those are counters for hordes. Horses are used for other things now.

Is it dumb to not like that, that was just one of many bad rules in 8th(most rules except the stupidity rule that they actually manage to make better)..and is it dumb when a 20 unit stong black knights unit for 600 points get totaly owned by a 50 unit stong halbaderds unit for 300 points...yes that is dumb in my opinion. Cavalary might have been to strong in the past editions but then again...heavy cavalry was in our own history the most devestating trops of their time. And to point it out once more..the cavalry was just ONE thing i chosed to point out, i can add how you move, how the magic works, how you charge...all of them now base on pure luck..not to mention all the screwy points values most troops now have as none have a new army book to this edition..except beastmen maybe.

NecronBob
28-08-2010, 00:15
I think if you'll read up a little on medieval warfare, you'll find that cavalry wasn't the end all to warfare. Certainly they were powerful, but massed infantry won its fair share of battles, especially with the advent of weapons such as the pike.

Of course, Warhammer isn't a historical simulation. There are plenty of great historical games out there; however, you should prepare yourself for a more balanced role for cavalry in most of those games as well.

zantis
28-08-2010, 00:31
I could rant for a good while about how much i cant stand 8th edition (partially 8th ed itself, and partially just a whole new rules set coming out). But for now i'll try to keep it short.
I play ogres. Right when i have a decent ogre list figured out that actually puts up a decent fight and doesnt get relentlessly pounded into the ground every time, gw changes the rules on me. >:(
Sure, we have stomp attacks now and can fight with 3 attacks from the second rank. And yes, gnoblars are ******* amazing now (a 6 can wound anything).
But what i'm noticing is how whenever i am charged or when i charge, about 1/3 to 1/2 of my unit dies before i even get to attack.
Anyone who has said that chargers no longer going first isnt a huge change, either plays elves or a dwarf or empire gunline.
ogres need to go first on the charge to actually hold their own against most armies. Now the only time i will ever get to fight first is against zombies. One guy at my game club plays vamps, but he's switching either back to 40k or a different fantasy army because vamps got so screwed over in the new edition.
Overall, I'm just angry about how gw takes away the one good thing going for ogres and tries to cover it up with other stuff that makes no difference if they die before they can fight.

Commissar Vaughn
28-08-2010, 00:34
@ NecronBob: True, the high point of the age of cavalry domination was Hastings, as armies began to rely less on bonded commoners honouring the fuedal obligations and more on paid proffessionals the infantry got harder and harder for the Horse to break it.

Lord Inquisitor
28-08-2010, 00:38
Is it dumb to not like that, that was just one of many bad rules in 8th(most rules except the stupidity rule that they actually manage to make better)..and is it dumb when a 20 unit stong black knights unit for 600 points get totaly owned by a 50 unit stong halbaderds unit for 300 points...yes that is dumb in my opinion.
Well define "owned"... even arrayed in horde formation versus 5x4 formation for the cavalry, 24 halberdiers would average 1 casualty a round and the cavalry, even withough charging would average 4.5 kills in return - sure, the cav will take a while to finish them off, but with a magic banner, a resonable formation, charging and fear, the knights will carve through that halberdier unit in no time, even on a frontal charge. Array them 7-wide, with the Strigos banner and under the crown of command, even without characters we're looking at 12 casualties on the first round alone.

I agree that cavalry has been nerfed overmuch, particularly due to the hamfisted application of Steadfast but it isn't exactly like cavalry are out of the game right now.


I could rant for a good while about how much i cant stand 8th edition (partially 8th ed itself, and partially just a whole new rules set coming out). But for now i'll try to keep it short.
I play ogres.
Play more, take bigger units. Ogres are much better now than they used to be. Seriously.

Fighting in two ranks is amazing. Units of 6 or 8 can deal ferocious damage, even if they lose an ogre from attacks. Scraplaunchers are incredible, Ogre magic is just phenomenal now (you can take a Slaughtermaster!). Many of the common items are just great for ogres with our lousy magic item list. Gnoblars are great tarpits (if they don't bicker) and it's much easier to get the all-important >6" charge PLUS stomps.

If a third to a half of your unit is dying you must be running small units (which we all did in 7th). More models is what you need. Most units can't put out more than three or four wounds on an ogre unit unless you're facing something really nasty like chaos warriors. Take a unit of 8 Ironguts, they kill one, you attack back with 7. They die, very messily to 21 S6 attacks.

Hjiryon
28-08-2010, 02:25
So, I play wood elves. I want my close combat skirmishers back. I don't know what these "we pretend to be in formation, except we suck" people I have in my army nowadays are, but they're not the wardancers I used to know.

That said, I quite like 8th edition for one very important reason: It has scenarios. The most lame thing about 7th edition was the lack of variation; it was the same pitched battle over and over again, with a pretense of importance given to the two pieces of terrain placed at the extremes of the board to be out of the way and with the goals of the game being the same.
Now terrain matters (it's a bit over the top at times, but it's not too bad).
Now people have to think and adjust to the scenario.

But the best thing in the entire edition is the need for risk management.
People, I don't care how you cut it, being able to tell 10" and 10.2" from each other is not a necessary tactical skill; it's trite and a crutch for bad game design if anything. Premeasuring handed out like candy fixed that.
Add in random charge lengths, and you need contingency plans to cover you if you don't make those important charge rolls. Sure, seeing double 6s for charge length gets annoying... But it shouldn't happen often, and your opponent is making a gamble when trying it. I would have preferred a smaller variation in charge lengths - something like the normal distance from 7th, give or take 1-3 - but the current system works.

My main gripe, apart from having to butcher the feel of the Wood Elf lists? The current balance of magic. It's not strictly speaking as broken as 7th was, but it's still not good at all. If you disagree, go talk to sunny the vampire. ^_^
The second one: War Machines. I'd like my partials back, or I want them to scatter more often.

All in all, the game is now much more about risk management, which means the player has slightly less control of what's going on. But at the same time, I find that this enforces tactical thinking.

Metal_ash
28-08-2010, 02:49
To answer the question of this thread as clear as i can...
8th edition should be burned for the abomination it is!
Specialy for now as the points cost for many many tropps is far away from what they should be, some troops pays big points for something they can not use anymore and some gets awesome skills for free and not at all taken in to acount of the current cost of some troops.
Sure there was things in 7th that was not good at all and not balanced but 8th i will not even play. Good thing for me is that most of them i play with thinks the same and will continue to play 7th.
And yes... I am one that not like the thought of winning my battles or loosing them for that matter out of pure luck...and pure luck seems what the 8th be all about, well not all... it is also about force player to build bigger and bigger units and armys so GW can suck more money out of their players.
Enough said from me here about 8th VS 7th.

I am not alone in my opinions about 8th edition... and i hope more soon see what i see;)

Alric
28-08-2010, 10:08
Do you play fantasy? Or is it too much to make that assumption based on your posting your opinion of 8th Edition in the Warhammer section of the site?
First before you start pointing fingers at others remember that YOU are the one that said he didnt like the rules before 8th ,YOU are the one who said he didnt want to invest in warhammer before 8th, while gatsby, et al, have been playing warhammer 7th edition with their armies all along.

I going to point out that your statements are contradictory , first you state..

I have years of experience.

Even though you also state..

I never bought an army myself because I didn't see the point of investing in a rules system that I didn't think would change so drastically as it has.
plus ...

Yeah, I wasn't invested in it because it was a poor ruleset which didn't fit what I was looking for. Why buy an army for a game I don't really enjoy playing?
plus...

Yes, I'm wasn't locked into Warhammer before. There is a reason for that; every time we played it, I (like most of my group) simply didn't find it that fun.

You state that neither you or your friends liked 7th, so much so you wouldnt buy any minis. This doesnt sound like someone that has years of experience.



Speaking as a guy who played with other people's armies because he didn't want to invest in a system he didn't really enjoy, I'm looking into exactly what type of army I want to buy.

To summarize: Your entire post was just trying to discredit me by seizing on one element (An element which does nothing to eliminate my experiences with 7th or my criticism) completely out of context and running with it.
Nope what I have done is pointed out that despite all that you say Warhammer STILL isn't good enough for you to buy an army, whats taking you so long you claim you have "years of experience", 8th has been out for 2 months now, you act as though the game and all its rules were just invented, there's a reason it's called "8th Edition" you know.



I like debate. You might fail to see "facts" in my posts, but you'll see logic in my posts because there are no hard facts to the debate, but there is logic in someone's reasoning.
Yes there are facts, like the fact that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is, the fact that you only debate Warhammer.



The idea that I have to own an army to judge a system is foolish; Or when you were struggling with a way to try and discredit me that you completely forgot about the fact that I've played both systems (I've played Warhammer quite a bit since the new one came out, since our group actually wanted to play it rather than feeling obligated to because some guys had Warhammer)?

No , what would be foolish is to think that the opinion of someone who hasnt even bought any minis, rulebooks or army books is worth 2 cents.You say you and your group didnt want to play 7th but felt obligated to ,even though you all could be playing 40k or another game, and yet you still forced yourself to play 7th anyway, and that you forced yourselves to play it for years and did so even though you didnt even have an army or the army books. You dont think anyone believe's that do you ? You have no army no army books no interest in Warhammer, you just want to "debate" and to argue. I have no resepct for the opinion of someone with no REAL experience.

freddieyu
28-08-2010, 14:18
@metal ash.....you are not alone, just in the minority

peace bro...at least you can take a break from WHFB and rest awhile, while the majority settle down and enjoy this ed. 5 more years and i reach your tenure of 17 years playing whfb...

chamelion 6
28-08-2010, 14:59
I started playing WFB back in '80 or '81 with 3rd edition. I took a break a year or so in 6th edition 'cause I hated the game and completely ditched 7th, so I've been playing this game as long or longer than anybody here.

8th is a wonderful game, 7th sucked the air out of the room so fast it gave me the bends.

The problem with the above statement is it only applies to me. Much as I hated 6th and 7th there were plenty of others, at the time, that were excited about it. I was in the minority then, just like you 8th haters are in the minority now.

The reality is all the bitching and moaning isn't changing any minds and it isn't going to. Stop worrying about the rest of the world and move on... You're not realizing that the more you harp on the same tired points the more you validate 8th edition to those that love it.

I really have a hard time understanding all the venom, hostility, and nastiness over a game. :wtf:

NixonAsADaemonPrince
28-08-2010, 15:49
I really have a hard time understanding all the venom, hostility, and nastiness over a game. :wtf:

Hear hear. If you are just enjoying a good argument over this, then fine, but it's not worth getting annoyed when just talking about a game which is played for fun ;).

Nuada
28-08-2010, 15:57
I started playing WFB back in '80 or '81 with 3rd edition.

I think you mean '91, not '81

1st edition didn't come out until 1983

3rd ed was 87 to 92 :D

chamelion 6
28-08-2010, 16:24
I think you mean '91, not '81

1st edition didn't come out until 1983

3rd ed was 87 to 92 :D

I may have the edition wrong, but it was definately before '85. 84 to 85 was a time of drastic change and the people I played with changed. WFB went for 6 or 7 of us to 1 or 2 until about 93 or 94. I remember going to 5th edition in about 96 cause my son was a year old...

Was a smallish rulebook that included the army lists and pretty much no background. The armies were pretty generic with little specialization and miniatures were nearly impossible to find.

My memory is pretty fuzzy on the editions and stuff, but the years are pretty clear because of who and where I was playing.

(As I recall, there were rules for playing it as an RPG, which is how we stumbled onto it in the first place....)

dirach.
28-08-2010, 16:48
The 1st edition had RPG rules (very bad RPG rules) included. It came in a box with 3 small books inside. It didn't have Army lists included, but there was an expantion "Forces of fantasy" that had lists. This expantion also included 3 small books.

chamelion 6
28-08-2010, 17:34
The 1st edition had RPG rules (very bad RPG rules) included. It came in a box with 3 small books inside. It didn't have Army lists included, but there was an expantion "Forces of fantasy" that had lists. This expantion also included 3 small books.

Hmmmm.... I remember the RPG rules being pretty bad, we never used them. I remember the book for the rules in black and white, pretty poorly done, but then most rules were done the same way so it was pretty comparable to what was on the market. I thought it had some simple one page lists. Man, I've not thought about this stuff in years. And I've played literally hundreds of sets of different kinds of rules.

I think my friend still has them, I'll try to see....

Gatsby
28-08-2010, 18:03
I really have a hard time understanding all the venom, hostility, and nastiness over a game. :wtf:

its the wasted money and time issue. I wouldn't mind if GT's and the like supported 7th, but as they don't, i have no tournaments to go to so I'm effectively out till 9th (Providing they don't turn 9th into the luck based die fest 8th is.)

Now if YOU would like to refund my time and money put into the hobby by all means, I wont harbor any ill feelings, I'll just go to 40k and put fantasy behind me. No more griping on the flaws of 8th.

Kisanis
28-08-2010, 18:39
Wow, no matter how many people point out why cavalry was nerfed no one ever lets this drop. Cavalry was nerfed because in 7th because it went in a dircetion you wanted it too, destroyed infantry so badly that they were guarenteed to flee (without taking a single hit back), and then overrun. Cue repeat.

It is a dumb reason to hate 8th because your pretty ponies can't function as the doom lazers you want them too. Beat hordes with warmachines. Or spells. Those are counters for hordes. Horses are used for other things now.

I play a Bret Calv Army and I love the new edition for this exact reason.
The game plays a lot more LOGICALLY. Think about it, in 7th with some small luck, a 6 man knight errant lance could charge in, kill 4 (FOUR) enemy models, not take any hits back, and force a squad of possibly 40+ SPEARMEN to turn tail and flee.

Calvary always have been and always will be a flanking force. I also hated how every game of fantasy in 6 & 7 was a manouverfest; manipulating knowns to avoid or gain advantage. It was predictably boring and all around less fun for myself and apparent 200+ other players.

The new edition has gotten me excited again (and my friends as well) I painting brets for heavens sake. I haven't even looked at that army for almost 5 years!

A lot of people will be upset by the change. Change always does this. I have to totally revamp my army, but I ENJOY the game. Revamping? Who cares if I ENJOY it :D

Why don't all the 7th players get together and just keep playing 7th? I've played for years and never played a tourny. In closing, its a game; find some opponents and play it out and HAVE FUN :D

peace.

cptcosmic
28-08-2010, 19:01
in 8. it is not fun to fight against all those warmachines combined with TLOS. people say, in 8., you are faster in close combat, thus it is fine... which is not true at all. in 7. I was in close combat in turn 2 already like now, only thing that changed is, infantry is a bit faster now.

beside the shooting power, those armies with strong shooting phase also have a very strong magic defense, thus you cannot just easily counter with magic, unless you use some power scroll cheese.

in short: non ballistic skill based shooting is overpowered and the rule designer obviously took too many drugs while they wrote the shooting rules. they obviously forgot the cover save like in 40k.

chamelion 6
28-08-2010, 19:37
its the wasted money and time issue. I wouldn't mind if GT's and the like supported 7th, but as they don't, i have no tournaments to go to so I'm effectively out till 9th (Providing they don't turn 9th into the luck based die fest 8th is.)

Now if YOU would like to refund my time and money put into the hobby by all means, I wont harbor any ill feelings, I'll just go to 40k and put fantasy behind me. No more griping on the flaws of 8th.

I understand people griping. I griped when 6th came about. What I'm seeing goes beyond griping. It's like people are taking this personally. Like GW singled them out personally for a swift kick in the crotch. And those that like 8th are part of some vast sinister conspiracy to destroy proper gaming and replace it with Chutes and Ladders.

As for the refund... Mmmmm... Not likely. Nobody refunded my money when 6th got dumped in my lap.

Change is good. Embrase it and you'll be a happier person in the long run.

And given the response to 8th, I'd get ready for 9th to be an extension of the same philosophy. I think's it gonna be awhile, if ever, that WFB goes back to the philosophy of 6th and 7th. Time will tell, but clearly 8th is starting off with a rush of enthusiam.

It's a game, a pastime.... It's not the end of life as we know it. I just don't see it worth all the grief and misery.

The Chutes and Ladders thing might not be a bad idea... It kinda reminds me of 7th edition in most respects.... :p :evilgrin:

:angel: Of course I mean't that in the most sincear way posible... :angel:

Justice And Rule
28-08-2010, 20:46
First before you start pointing fingers at others remember that YOU are the one that said he didnt like the rules before 8th ,YOU are the one who said he didnt want to invest in warhammer before 8th, while gatsby, et al, have been playing warhammer 7th edition with their armies all along.

That's not an argument.


I going to point out that your statements are contradictory , first you state..


Even though you also state..

plus ...

plus...


You state that neither you or your friends liked 7th, so much so you wouldnt buy any minis. This doesnt sound like someone that has years of experience.

How is any of that contradictory? My friends didn't like it, but they still had the figures and didn't want to sell them. Not all of them hated it as much as I did, some were ambivalent. We played it sparingly; once a month in a group at the end. I generally got guilted into a 2nd game by one of my friends.


Nope what I have done is pointed out that despite all that you say Warhammer STILL isn't good enough for you to buy an army, whats taking you so long you claim you have "years of experience", 8th has been out for 2 months now, you act as though the game and all its rules were just invented, there's a reason it's called "8th Edition" you know.

Okay, I'll explain this in small words so you can understand this.

I have played 7ths for years. My friends had armies. They didn't like the rules, but they didn't want to sell their armies. They had put a lot into a system which they had grown very tired of (They started 5th-6th). We played it so that they would get use out of their models. We did this because we are friends. I never really enjoyed 7th. I did not want to be like my friends. My friends were stuck with armies to rules they didn't like. I didn't want to be like them.

Is that easy enough for you, or do I have to draw pictures?

You are the only person who doesn't understand this, and clutches to this because you have no argument to bring other than trying to discredit me. If the best you can do is try to deliberately misinterpret my position, you might as well stop.


Yes there are facts, like the fact that you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is, the fact that you only debate Warhammer.

Nice ad homenim. I am currently torn between Dwarves and Empire, but don't worry.


No , what would be foolish is to think that the opinion of someone who hasnt even bought any minis, rulebooks or army books is worth 2 cents.You say you and your group didnt want to play 7th but felt obligated to ,even though you all could be playing 40k or another game, and yet you still forced yourself to play 7th anyway, and that you forced yourselves to play it for years and did so even though you didnt even have an army or the army books. You dont think anyone believe's that do you ? You have no army no army books no interest in Warhammer, you just want to "debate" and to argue. I have no resepct for the opinion of someone with no REAL experience.

I have real experience. You ignore it because you have no ability to create a coherent argument about why 8th is bad. This is why you are trying to attack my credibility like a poor imitation of a political attack ad.

My friends had Warhammer armies. They love the setting, didn't like the rules. We got through a game or two a month just to let them show off their armies. We did play other games, but we got through games of 7th, too. Sometimes we did it just to switch things up (Mind you, 4th Edition 40K was a bit wonky, too).

I still don't understand what is so hard about this, but apparently you'll clutch to it like a drowning sailor holding onto a cannon ball. Whatever.

Gatsby
28-08-2010, 20:47
I understand people griping. I griped when 6th came about. What I'm seeing goes beyond griping. It's like people are taking this personally. Like GW singled them out personally for a swift kick in the crotch. And those that like 8th are part of some vast sinister conspiracy to destroy proper gaming and replace it with Chutes and Ladders.

but GW DID single a few of us out, look at what they did to VC, it was viewed as overpowered, so did they Nerf us a bit to bring us in line?

No they beat us with the Nerf bat, then deciding that wasn't enough they pulled out a double barreled Nerf shotgun and shot us in the face, but just to be sure they went and hopped in their Nerf M1 Abrams and backed over us a few times for safe measure, before taking out a Nerf spit wad to administer the coup de grāce.

they also hit WE's and they didn't do anything wrong.


As for the refund... Mmmmm... Not likely. Nobody refunded my money when 6th got dumped in my lap.

well then i aint done complaining.


Change is good. Embrase it and you'll be a happier person in the long run.

Stalin said something along those lines and look how that turned out...


And given the response to 8th, I'd get ready for 9th to be an extension of the same philosophy. I think's it gonna be awhile, if ever, that WFB goes back to the philosophy of 6th and 7th. Time will tell, but clearly 8th is starting off with a rush of enthusiam.

Isnt that how both 6th and 7th started out?


It's a game, a pastime.... It's not the end of life as we know it. I just don't see it worth all the grief and misery.

Neither would I were it not for being out 4 grand for a game that can now be played with 2 dice and a craps table. After all if I wanted to play that way I would have gone to Vegas.


The Chutes and Ladders thing might not be a bad idea... It kinda reminds me of 7th edition in most respects.... :p :evilgrin:

I like chutes and ladders, and were 8th edition as fun as chutes and ladders I may have actually enjoyed it. Kinda like the offshoot snakes and ladders but with vampires... and Squigs.


:angel: Of course I mean't that in the most sincear way posible... :angel:

Hmmm Squigs and ladders... :evilgrin:

Justice And Rule
28-08-2010, 20:54
Squigs and Ladders... that sounds like a great concept for a gobbo treasure hunt game.

Gatsby
28-08-2010, 20:55
Squigs and Ladders... that sounds like a great concept for a gobbo treasure hunt game.

ya know i was thinking something similar, i mean honestly though, squigs in ANY simplified game mechanic would work.

Justice And Rule
28-08-2010, 20:57
Yeah. Plus, Squigs chasing gold-digging Gobbos is always a good group game.

... Really, any game where gobbos get to backstab the hell out of each other is a good group them, though. :D

Maoriboy007
28-08-2010, 21:41
...8th edition should be burned for the abomination it is!
I wouldn't go that far :) 8th actually has many redeeming features, so did the previous editions, regardless of what many would have you beleive.


8th is a wonderful game, 7th sucked the air out of the room so fast it gave me the bends...
Eh, our group played it consistantly since its release. It had its problems, but no edition hasn't. Army books seemed to be the main cause rather than the edition itself.


The problem with the above statement is it only applies to me. Much as I hated 6th and 7th there were plenty of others, at the time, that were excited about it.

I was in the minority then, just like you 8th haters are in the minority now.
This would seem to indicate that the editions grew stale over time, rather than being awful at their inception, there is no real indication that 8th should be any different.


The reality is all the bitching and moaning isn't changing any minds and it isn't going to.
I would beg to differ, "bitching and moaning" , as you so politely put it, can be a fair indicator of what is seen to be wrong with the game.
It affect things like comp and tournament restrictions, and the new edition is almost certainly a by product of complaints (look at some of the old anti VC threads and cross reference it with the 8th edition book, its eerie!)


I really have a hard time understanding all the venom, hostility, and nastiness over a game. :wtf:
As has been said, its really an issue of time and money invested.
In some cases hostility breeds more hostility, disagreement and heated debate is fine, but we should all try and keep it civil.


I play a Bret Calv Army and I love the new edition for this exact reason.
Brett and Chaos cavalry actually dont do to badly out of 8th IMO.


The game plays a lot more LOGICALLY. Think about it, in 7th with some small luck, a 6 man knight errant lance could charge in, kill 4 (FOUR) enemy models, not take any hits back, and force a squad of possibly 40+ SPEARMEN to turn tail and flee.
You are correct, this was indeed a problem in 7th. Steadfast, Strikesback and horde rules were reasonable solutions to the problem. Strike in initiative and
Disruption not affecting steadfast were not great concepts and were unreasonably painful to cavalry.


I also hated how every game of fantasy in 6 & 7 was a manouverfest; manipulating knowns to avoid or gain advantage. It was predictably boring and all around less fun for myself and apparent 200+ other players.
Heavens yes, I don't have too many problems with the new movement rules at all. Probably one of the better changes to the game with only minor flaws


Why don't all the 7th players get together and just keep playing 7th?
Its not quite so simple, is it worth splitting you game group up because half like 7th and the others like 8th. Just a few less fubars wuold have made the game so much more appealing to more players.


...it is not fun to fight against all those warmachines combined with TLOS. People say in 8th you are faster in close combat and thus it is fine,which isn't true at all. In 7th I was in close combat in turn 2 already like now, only thing that changed is, infantry is a bit faster now....non ballistic skill based shooting is overpowered and the rule designer obviously took too many drugs while they wrote the shooting rules....
I have to agree in part with your argument, it looks like gunlines and magic are going to be the new broken meta game of 8th.
At least broken combat armies got in a scrap, I cant see the fun in just removing models as you push them across the table myself.


...It's like people are taking this personally. Like GW singled them out personally for a swift kick in the crotch.
As a VC player certainly it certainly felt that way, reading through the book felt like an instruction manual on how to dissassemble my favourite army in particular.
Ok so its a personal gripe, WE players probably felt the same way.

decker_cky
28-08-2010, 23:31
but GW DID single a few of us out, look at what they did to VC, it was viewed as overpowered, so did they Nerf us a bit to bring us in line?

No they beat us with the Nerf bat, then deciding that wasn't enough they pulled out a double barreled Nerf shotgun and shot us in the face, but just to be sure they went and hopped in their Nerf M1 Abrams and backed over us a few times for safe measure, before taking out a Nerf spit wad to administer the coup de grāce.

I'd more say you were nerfed down to middle of the pack, which is refreshing considering how VC have always had one of the nastiest lists. The one change I think GW should have errata'd in is that invocation should have been changed to multi-level like the old one.

Souppilgrim
29-08-2010, 06:58
So to sum up most of the thread: People who played VC and to some extent Daemons, and Delfs, are upset because their previously broken armies take tactics now....and since they couldn't be the ones who are lacking, 8th edition is too random?

Rakton
29-08-2010, 07:35
I think 8th edition is a little more on luck, randomness, and to think on what do do, where to deploy my units, etc. gw took away the ability to predict in 8th (ex: guessing, charge ranges, etc) which made people who use this a lot think the game has no tactics because of this. 8th is a little more random than 7th as far as i can see, but it shows the battlefield of getting to points to get benefits and to not get the same terrain all the time like if it's the same place in the warhammer world.(ex: i get hill and you get forests, etc). the magic phase in this edition is very tactical on what do you want to do with what you have. ether to do 6 dice and pray fro irresistible, or try to get several spells off, etc. shooting with tlos might suck, but forests, buildings, and even your own men can provide cover. i do this with vulnerable units like wizards and fast calv, etc. cannon fire and mortar fire are better to take those down but rather take down hordes in the opponent's army. cc is nice and challenging since of lower as and more ward saves. movement i can't see much of a problem with that. charging. may sound unrealistic but in real life. some units can go faster at times while some units go slower. to me it just' puts risks that if you want to charge a unit from farther range, or just simply marching for another turn. destructive spells can win one type of game but possibly cannot win games like watchtower or possibly blood and glory if they don't think it through. I think this edition is a major improvement mainly because of balancing armies, doomsday spells can be game winners but not always, and thinking on the field, the opponent, how to use terrain to your own advantage. that's how real battles work out. to me, it just feels a little more realistic.

Shimmergloom
29-08-2010, 07:41
Squigs and Ladders produced by GW, would cost $200 and include over 10 plastic models!!!!

Gatsby
29-08-2010, 08:32
So to sum up most of the thread: People who played VC and to some extent Daemons, and Delfs, are upset because their previously broken armies take tactics now....and since they couldn't be the ones who are lacking, 8th edition is too random?

no balanced lists DID require tactics (yes there were cheesy lists but not everyone played them) now VC are straight up unplayable competitively.

Maoriboy007
29-08-2010, 10:15
I'd more say you were nerfed down to middle of the pack, which is refreshing considering how VC have always had one of the nastiest lists.
VC haven't had te nastiest lists in a long, time. One of the more annoying is probably closer to the truth.


So to sum up most of the thread: People who played VC and to some extent Daemons, and Delfs, are upset because their previously broken armies take tactics now....and since they couldn't be the ones who are lacking, 8th edition is too random?

Demons and DEs aren't actually too bad off in 8th.
And your list of broken armies is missing a few, LM Skaven Dwarves Empire HE all have broken lists that translated across to 8th fairly unscathed.

Maoriboy007
29-08-2010, 10:26
no balanced lists DID require tactics (yes there were cheesy lists but not everyone played them) now VC are straight up unplayable competitively.
I wouldn,t say unplayable, thay are probably just a bit better off than O&G were in 7th.


So to sum up most of the thread: People who played VC and to some extent Daemons, and Delfs, are upset because their previously broken armies take tactics now....
Thats a a good one:rolleyes:, I'd say that one of the reasons VC were so hated in 7th is because it required some tactics to beat them for a change, rather than a scroll caddy and some knights like in 6th edition.
People got a shock in 7th edition when they ran into t3 skeletons and T2 zombies and suddenly they couldn't just obliterate them.
What did you think we were paying 8 points for people?

freddieyu
29-08-2010, 13:28
no balanced lists DID require tactics (yes there were cheesy lists but not everyone played them) now VC are straight up unplayable competitively.

????

Check out the hard boyz thread...there are quite a few VC winners...

Dwarfs, lizards, HE, VC, woc, doc, empire, ogres, skaven, even TK, brets, and orcs and goblins have placed in the prelims...not bad...

hacksaaw
29-08-2010, 13:38
I'd more say you were nerfed down to middle of the pack, which is refreshing considering how VC have always had one of the nastiest lists. The one change I think GW should have errata'd in is that invocation should have been changed to multi-level like the old one.

no VC is now a middle of the pack army only if you abandon playing the undead theme, ie drop skellies, drop zombies drop black knights, and take ghouls and blood knights and offensive magic. There just isnt much left of a necromantic magic army if you want to win. you cant keep your units up to strength with IOD anymore unless you get extremly lucky on the casting.

so instead of that you make a list that includes a vamp with a powerscroll and ghouls. or you can make an imitation chaos knight list. but forget making a list around your books magic lore.

My VC are on the shelf, because there is no point in playing them. skellies cant outfight gobbos on their own and with out the ability to retry casting IOD your magic gets shut down.

the FAQ should have repointed skellies down to 3 points,
because that is how bad they got with the fear nerf.

bahh i want to play a shambling hord, and now whats the point.

Maoriboy007
29-08-2010, 20:11
????
Check out the hard boyz thread...there are quite a few VC winners...
Not especially, LM and DE seem to lead the pack, god I hope the VC winners aren't just powerscroll players.

Gatsby
29-08-2010, 20:20
Not especially, LM and DE seem to lead the pack, god I hope the VC winners aren't just powerscroll players.

but that's ALL we have left, which is why i refuse to play them now.

itcamefromthedeep
30-08-2010, 00:45
I can't say I've really seen a tame chaos edition myself. 6 ed Hordes of Chaos was an incredibly powerful edition. 7th was probably the first edition they havent been at the top of the table, and even then they were still pretty good.
In the Nemesis crown campaign in early 7th edition, the Hordes of Chaos book was struggling at the bottom with Beasts of Chaos and Ogres (who pulled ahead as I recall). The only army that was significantly worse was the Greenskin book. With the exception of good lists like the flying circus and Khorne cavalry, the Hordes of Chaos book was junk. A lot of players lost very badly very often with that book.


bahh i want to play a shambling hord, and now whats the point.I wanted to play with my Zombie horde with Vampires and Wight Lords up front like I did in 6th. I couldn't because this book didn't even let me put characters in the unit. I shelved my Vampires when the 7e book came out because I felt pretty badly railroaded and didn't feel like making for lame games for my opponents.

I've played them once in 8th edition. I'm not sure if I'll try them again (outside of the planned rematch). I still can't do a Zombie horde and I have plenty of other armies to play with.

---

Flanking in 8th means that your opponent brings fewer Attacks (often far fewer Attacks). If you flank with a similarly-sized unit then you can break steadfast. There's still a very big difference between 30 Goblins in your front and 30 Goblins in your flank.

Often, cavalry need infantry support to win combats quickly. Looking at it from the other side, small cavalry units support infantry by lending them kills and possibly a flank charge bonus. A frontal charge with infantry will hold the enemy unit in place while you maneuver the cavalry for a flank charge. Both infantry units will often hold for the 2 rounds it takes for the cavalry to charge in and break the stalemate.

Having said that, a unit of 10 Black Knights will often just win against 40 Empire Swordsmen by killing them all. It'll take time, but they will probably win that combat on a frontal charge for a comparable points investment. Cavalry are *not* simply junk.

As always, the most important part of getting the charge is deciding which unit gets to fight whom. Choosing your fights is what matters most. Getting the charge won't much help a Salamander win against a unit of Chaos Warriors. It didn't do the job in 7th and doesn't in 8th. Frankly, the loss of chargers striking first isn't that important. It is overshadowed by stepping up, steadfast and fighting with an additional rank(s).

7th was a good system and I enjoyed many a game of it. I prefer 8th so far.


but that's ALL we have left, which is why i refuse to play them now.
It's unfortunate that you've given up already, but it is of course your choice.

I can win with VC, as can the notable VC player in my area. The army is not exactly hopeless. See the tactics thread for details.

Maoriboy007
30-08-2010, 01:09
In the Nemesis crown campaign in early 7th edition, the Hordes of Chaos book was struggling at the bottom with Beasts of Chaos and Ogres (who pulled ahead as I recall).The only army that was significantly worse was the Greenskin book. With the exception of good lists like the flying circus and Khorne cavalry, the Hordes of Chaos book was junk. A lot of players lost very badly very often with that book.

Was that when demons was taken away from them?
But up until the better 7th edition books started coming out, WoC were still fairly dominant (and godly in 6th edition).
The list I generally saw was Chaos Knight unit of death with unkillable hero, a massive unit of chaos furies, scroll caddy, miniumum disrupter dog core units, chariots and Hellcannon. That list could clean up fairly well as I recall.

I shelved my Vampires when the 7e book came out because I felt pretty badly railroaded and didn't feel like making for lame games for my opponents..


I can win with VC, as can the notable VC player in my area. The army is not exactly hopeless. See the tactics thread for details.Indeed VC are playable, but they have had the odds pretty much stacked against them this edition, rather unfairly I think. Oh well its pretty much how my TKs were in the last editions.

Souppilgrim
30-08-2010, 06:25
So to sum up most of the thread: People who played VC and to some extent Daemons, and Delfs, are upset because their previously broken armies take tactics now....and since they couldn't be the ones who are lacking, 8th edition is too random?


no balanced lists DID require tactics (yes there were cheesy lists but not everyone played them) now VC are straight up unplayable competitively.
.............................i'll take that as a yes.

itcamefromthedeep
30-08-2010, 15:37
Was that when demons was taken away from them?
But up until the better 7th edition books started coming out, WoC were still fairly dominant (and godly in 6th edition).
The list I generally saw was Chaos Knight unit of death with unkillable hero, a massive unit of chaos furies, scroll caddy, miniumum disrupter dog core units, chariots and Hellcannon. That list could clean up fairly well as I recall.
The Nemesis Crown campaign was well before the Daemon book came out (before 7th ed High Elves, even).

There were a few rare good builds with Hordes of Chaos, but none of the people I played against used them. It took a long time before people got the hang of the hang of it, and even then most never did. There's a reason why the Storm of Chaos went so badly for the bad guys. The general population of Chaos players were simply losing all over the place.


Indeed VC are playable, but they have had the odds pretty much stacked against them this edition, rather unfairly I think.
Vampires seems to be showing up in round 2 of 'Ard 'Boyz in some numbers. This may be due to suicide mages, but with that tactic also available to many other armies I don't think a suicide Purple Sun is what's dredging them out of mediocrity. That doesn't quite add up.

I think it would serve you and Gatsby to figure out what they're seeing in the army list. Well, it would serve me as well but we have some idea that it's not all Doom and Darkness for the ungrateful dead.

decker_cky
30-08-2010, 17:56
There were a few rare good builds with Hordes of Chaos, but none of the people I played against used them. It took a long time before people got the hang of the hang of it, and even then most never did. There's a reason why the Storm of Chaos went so badly for the bad guys. The general population of Chaos players were simply losing all over the place.

:wtf:

The difference between good wins and bad wins for SoC was pretty much the huge swing orcs and goblins gave the good side (with Gav changing the rules for an experiment on one location not helping either). I'd also put the fact that chaos had been rammed down people's throats for so long as a reason a lot of people supported the good side.

Enigmatik1
30-08-2010, 18:36
Vampires seems to be showing up in round 2 of 'Ard 'Boyz in some numbers. This may be due to suicide mages, but with that tactic also available to many other armies I don't think a suicide Purple Sun is what's dredging them out of mediocrity. That doesn't quite add up.

I think it would serve you and Gatsby to figure out what they're seeing in the army list. Well, it would serve me as well but we have some idea that it's not all Doom and Darkness for the ungrateful dead.

From what I'm hearing it isn't so much that Vampire Counts can win or be successful as an army. Vampire players seem to be unhappy with the way the army plays on the tabletop. This may range from someone like Maori, who didn't run the lovely MotBA, look at me I can break the magic phase in my sleep, magic spam you off the table lists we all knew so well to folks in this very thread who simply wanted to run skeleton or zombie hordes that simply don't work due to lack of magic support and expense of these units compared to their combat prowess (or lack thereof). I would be very interested to see the lists of the VC and TK players that did well.

Edit: I just looked over at DakkaDakka and both of the placing TK lists were Khalida, flood the board with shooting lists.../facepalm, I should've known. Now if one of those were a Settra list...hehe!

I happen to be of the mindset that 8E is really beginning to show us the inherent flaws in the design of both Undead armies. Even VC in their "glory days" had their issues that folks didn't want to see because they were getting IoN spammed off the table. Maybe now, both armies can get their proper due moving forward.

For all it's positive changes, so far 8E hasn't done either Undead army a lick of good taking their own army books into account. I think that's the problem. I win with TK now by taking advantage of the BRB and abusing the hell out of the magic system. My success rate is directly proportional to what I end up with via the Dunce Cap so far under 8E, whereas in before I did rather well with my in-your-face lists. Movement and close combat are my weakest phases atm, whereasin before I could participate in all four phases to some degree. Which makes this Chariot King General very, very sad. :cries:

But hey, there's a bright spot. I can cram a pair of Kings in a 2K list!

itcamefromthedeep
30-08-2010, 18:54
The difference between good wins and bad wins for SoC was pretty much the huge swing orcs and goblins gave the good side (with Gav changing the rules for an experiment on one location not helping either). I'd also put the fact that chaos had been rammed down people's throats for so long as a reason a lot of people supported the good side.
I saw Hordes of Chaos hanging near the bottom for Nemesis Crown, and saw a lot of Chaos players get trounced regularly at my local gaming venues. This makes me fairly confident that Hordes of Chaos was a weak army book for the general population.

What data brings you to your conclusion that Greenskins lost the campaign for the bad guys?


From what I'm hearing it isn't so much that Vampire Counts can win or be successful as an army. Vampire players seem to be unhappy with the way the army plays on the tabletop.
As a player with sizable collections of both undead armies, I can say that I put my Vampires down when 7th edition made me unhappy with how the army played on the tabletop.

My Tomb Kings play now much like I have always played them, though I do definitely see how 8e would force a change on other gamers. I never brought a Destroyer of Eternities, nor a Tomb King at all.

Enigmatik1
30-08-2010, 19:41
As a player with sizable collections of both undead armies, I can say that I put my Vampires down when 7th edition made me unhappy with how the army played on the tabletop.

You aren't the only one, either. For my part, I don't run VC at all, and am basically going off information gleaned from other VC players. Looking at the AB, I probably wouldn't have liked them in 7E either. :D


My Tomb Kings play now much like I have always played them, though I do definitely see how 8e would force a change on other gamers. I never brought a Destroyer of Eternities, nor a Tomb King at all.

Fair enough. I think we have diametrically opposed playstyles then as far as TK goes. I only ran a HLP once and hated spending the points on him the one time I did. Different strokes for different folks and all that jazz. I never really liked the DoE either, I'm more of a Flail of Skulls kinda guy. :D

Maoriboy007
30-08-2010, 22:14
So to sum up most of the thread: People who played VC and to some extent Daemons, and Delfs, are upset because their previously broken armies take tactics now....and since they couldn't be the ones who are lacking, 8th edition is too random?And everyone else is happy because their own broken lists managed to get through the 8th edition re-write pretty much unscathed?


I shelved my Vampires when the 7e book came out because I felt pretty badly railroaded and didn't feel like making for lame games for my opponents.VC were a perfectly reasonable army to play if you stayed away from a few things (notably MotBA).
The root of the problem with the army book (regardless of any other complaint) were the stupid fear rules, which VC players couldn't do much about. Apart from that the VC books was proabably one of the better written ones, it had its strengths, but it had noticible weaknesses as well.
The fact was Undead finally came close to working how they were supposed to.
Its notacible how broken my army seemed when I won a game, but no one noticed how bad they can be when I lost one.


The Nemesis Crown campaign was well before the Daemon book came out (before 7th ed High Elves, even).I don't know about nemesis crown, but 6ed Chaos did quite well until they lost the demon options and/or were surpassed by the 7th ed books


There were a few rare good builds with Hordes of Chaos, but none of the people I played against used them.That could explain a lot ;)


Vampires seems to be showing up in round 2 of 'Ard 'Boyz in some numbers.I'd be interested in seeing those results myself, where can I find them. The warseer thread doesn't seem to bear it out much though.


This may be due to suicide mages, but with that tactic also available to many other armies I don't think a suicide Purple Sun is what's dredging them out of mediocrity. That doesn't quite add up.The Loremaster ability is one of the very few advantages VC came out of 7th with, so its a shame its one of the few solutions VC have to fill the gaps in thier army. It wouldn't surprise me to see all of the placing VC lists have a powerscroll suicide mage and a Magic Helm Bunker Lord - its a shame that that build is almost a nessesity rather than an option.


I think it would serve you and Gatsby to figure out what they're seeing in the army list. Well, it would serve me as well but we have some idea that it's not all Doom and Darkness for the ungrateful dead.Its certainly not music and light, VC got shafted hard in this edition, but so did O&G in the last edition, VC will just have to muddle through in the same manner.


From what I'm hearing it isn't so much that Vampire Counts can win or be successful as an army. Vampire players seem to be unhappy with the way the army plays on the tabletop This may range from someone like Maori, who didn't run the lovely MotBA, look at me I can break the magic phase in my sleep, magic spam you off the table lists we all knew so well to folks in this very thread who simply wanted to run skeleton or zombie hordes that simply don't work due to lack of magic support and expense of these units compared to their combat prowess (or lack thereof). I would be very interested to see the lists of the VC and TK players that did well...Yeah,main combat lists seem to be hardly worth the risk, and VC don't have any shooting, which leaves magic as too much of an obvious solution. A real pity really.


I happen to be of the mindset that 8E is really beginning to show us the inherent flaws in the design of both Undead armies. Even VC in their "glory days" had their issues that folks didn't want to see because they were getting IoN spammed off the table. Maybe now, both armies can get their proper due moving forward.People did seem blind to the weaknesses of undead focusing on all thier strengths. Poor TKs didn't have that many strengths to begin with yet people bitched about them too.

For all it's positive changes, so far 8E hasn't done either Undead army a lick of good taking their own army books into account. I think that's the problem. I win with TK now by taking advantage of the BRB and abusing the hell out of the magic system. My success rate is directly proportional to what I end up with via the Dunce Cap so far under 8E, whereas in before I did rather well with my in-your-face lists. Movement and close combat are my weakest phases atm, whereasin before I could participate in all four phases to some degree. Which makes this Chariot King General very, very sad. :cries:

But hey, there's a bright spot. I can cram a pair of Kings in a 2K list![/QUOTE]


I saw Hordes of Chaos hanging near the bottom for Nemesis Crown, and saw a lot of Chaos players get trounced regularly at my local gaming venues. This makes me fairly confident that Hordes of Chaos was a weak army book for the general population.

What data brings you to your conclusion that Greenskins lost the campaign for the bad guys? I'm not too familiar with the conditions for nemesis crown, but in my experience a good 6ed army could (short of bad luck) eat most other armies.Was Nemesis an abberation where conditions were against HoC? I remamber they took a sharp decline when they couldn't take chaos furies any more , which was before the demon book came out.


You aren't the only one, either. For my part, I don't run VC at all, and am basically going off information gleaned from other VC players. Looking at the AB, I probably wouldn't have liked them in 7E either. :DOne thing I have always liked about VC is that they ewre a pure combat army, even most of thier magic was meant to boost thier ability in combat. Unlike HoC undead weren't very good at fighting, but they were relentless.

Oseru
30-08-2010, 22:30
I do enjoy the new edition. The new rule book was very well written with plenty of quality visual examples to clear up as much confusion as possible.

Where necessary, I hope GW will take a section in upcoming army books to do the same with the special rules for each individual army.

blackjack
30-08-2010, 22:58
It's a funner but less tactical game. This means more average gamers will have fun playing it. Gamers who want a competitive skill based experiance will have less fun.

GW has succeded in making Fantasy a "Hobby" game like they always wanted it to be.

Major Regression.

SamVimes
30-08-2010, 23:40
I don't know about nemesis crown, but 6ed Chaos did quite well until they lost the demon options and/or were surpassed by the 7th ed books

That could explain a lot ;)

I'd be interested in seeing those results myself, where can I find them. The warseer thread doesn't seem to bear it out much though.


I'm not too familiar with the conditions for nemesis crown, but in my experience a good 6ed army could (short of bad luck) eat most other armies.Was Nemesis an abberation where conditions were against HoC? I remamber they took a sharp decline when they couldn't take chaos furies any more , which was before the demon book came out.



6th edition demons (before SoC) were an utter joke, with the exception of furies. As for "good Chaos Builds" there were 2. The Chosen knight steamroller army of doom, and the Tzeentch Flying Circus. Elite Infantry in 6th was not at all like elite infantry of later years, and the marauder horde were ok-ish, but they were just empire swordsmen on larger bases (no marks for them back then).

Maoriboy007
30-08-2010, 23:46
Arrgghh, must not defend my VC, this is not a "VC got nerfed" thread! (although VC did get nerfed).
8th edition has its good points, but it has almost as many flaws as the previous editions too.
It currently benefits a lot from that shiny new book smell with some new flashy gimmiks, which are admittedly not as bad as might seem at first (especially some of the movement rules).

Lazarian
30-08-2010, 23:55
It's a funner but less tactical game. This means more average gamers will have fun playing it. Gamers who want a competitive skill based experiance will have less fun.

GW has succeded in making Fantasy a "Hobby" game like they always wanted it to be.

Major Regression.

I and the majority of people polled on this site over and over again would disagree with parts of your reply. The game is more fun, and just as tactically flexible. Charges have become random but leadership is just about certain. Even with randomness charges have become a different weapon and beast altogether. The question stated is 8th better than 7th and it can clearly be stated yes, it very much is. From the ardboys lists and smattering every army is doing well and varied lists are taking the scene by storm. Any edition that shows that Ogres can win a tournament (I have done stellar with them myself) makes me a happy guy, not just for my personal battles but for the game in general. Every army seems to be able to field one or two viable lists, very much not so in 8th

Maoriboy007
30-08-2010, 23:58
6th edition demons (before SoC) were an utter joke, with the exception of furies. As for "good Chaos Builds" there were 2. The Chosen knight steamroller army of doom, and the Tzeentch Flying Circus. Elite Infantry in 6th was not at all like elite infantry of later years, and the marauder horde were ok-ish, but they were just empire swordsmen on larger bases (no marks for them back then).

You're right about Chaos Not having that many options, but they didnt need any.
There wasn't much that Knights and Chariots couldn't decimate (think cheaper Bloodknights as a core choice).
Chaos furies and cheap hounds were the perfect compliment, hunting warmachines and disrupting the enemy.
Chaos Lords back in 6th made Vampires look like cute bunnies, and they didn't cost an extra Lord slot either.
Then came the Hellcannon.
6th edition Demons were indeed not as good as 7th edition, although the GDs could be pretty nasty.

Note this dynamic didn't change until mid 7th when the newer army books made some infantry choices more viable.

SamVimes
31-08-2010, 03:06
You're right about Chaos Not having that many options, but they didnt need any.
There wasn't much that Knights and Chariots couldn't decimate (think cheaper Bloodknights as a core choice).
Chaos furies and cheap hounds were the perfect compliment, hunting warmachines and disrupting the enemy.


Oh, I know all too well about that. Unfortunately, despite knowing what the badassed combos were for the list, I just don't build armies like that, and I struggled all through 6th edition with a weak daemon list (which saw its biggest boost when White Dwarf introduced seekers of Slaanesh). At the most I had 6 unmarked, basic, chaos knights. I've never been one to tailor a list to what's good and what's not, and instead build a list purely off of what I felt was "right" for the army.

Note, despite years of tournament play, I only ever won a handful of games (although I always got top marks for painting. Something my current O+G army would never get;) )

rocdocta
31-08-2010, 05:29
It's a funner but less tactical game. This means more average gamers will have fun playing it. Gamers who want a competitive skill based experiance will have less fun.

GW has succeded in making Fantasy a "Hobby" game like they always wanted it to be.

Major Regression.

+100 on top of that

itcamefromthedeep
31-08-2010, 06:03
I don't know about nemesis crown, but 6ed Chaos did quite well until they lost the demon options and/or were surpassed by the 7th ed booksThe Nemesis Crown Campaign took place the summer before 7e High Elves hit, so just as people were getting the hang of the 7e Empire book.

It was just a whole lot of people reporting games and results. Wins and losses both counted toward how the army was doing overall. There were no special campaign rules that I can think of, let alone special rules particularly detrimental to any given army.

Even the Flying Circus wasn't exactly spectacular in the age when "double Stank and Walter" lists were king. There were a *lot* of casual players who just went with a more-or-less random mix of mortal units, which tended to perform disastrously on the tabletop. Nemesis was more of a measure of the casual game than the top-tier lists. It gave a cross-section of the player base rather than focusing on the tourney players bringing their A-game.


I'd be interested in seeing those results myself, where can I find them. The warseer thread doesn't seem to bear it out much though.It would appear that I was mistaken in my impressions. Vampires get only 4 mentions out of 86 entries, where their fair share of the pie would be 5 or 6. I thought there were a few more Vampires in top 3 of each area.

If you care, High Elves, Empire, Lizardmen and Warriors of Chaos are the most common armies (not in that order), making up about half the field between the four of them.


Its certainly not music and light, VC got shafted hard in this edition, but so did O&G in the last edition, VC will just have to muddle through in the same manner.It's not as bad as the Greenskin situation was. Wood Elves *may* have it as bad as the Greenskins did.

---

Anyway, the 'Ard Boyz results so far see at least nine of the fifteen warhammer armies getting their fair representation, which strikes me as a significant improvement. Only Tomb Kings, Bretonnians, Beastmen and Wood Elves are real rarities.

Maoriboy007
31-08-2010, 08:20
Oh, I know all too well about that. Unfortunately, despite knowing what the badassed combos were for the list, I just don't build armies like that, and I struggled all through 6th edition with a weak daemon list (which saw its biggest boost when White Dwarf introduced seekers of Slaanesh). At the most I had 6 unmarked, basic, chaos knights. I've never been one to tailor a list to what's good and what's not, and instead build a list purely off of what I felt was "right" for the army.

Note, despite years of tournament play, I only ever won a handful of games (although I always got top marks for painting. Something my current O+G army would never get;) )
Personally I never faced a 6ed Chaos army that was anything less than rock hard;)
Its to your credit that you played faway from the optimumlists, and admittedly 6th ed demons were not near the monsters they became in 7th.
My Vc were never soft but I did at least build them around some basic principals, field at least on big block of core infantry, and my vampire lord should always end up in the thick of combat.


The Nemesis Crown Campaign took place the summer before 7e High Elves hit, so just as people were getting the hang of the 7e Empire book.
It was just a whole lot of people reporting games and results. Wins and losses both counted toward how the army was doing overall. There were no special campaign rules that I can think of, let alone special rules particularly detrimental to any given army.

[QUOTE=itcamefromthedeep;4951789]Even the Flying Circus wasn't exactly spectacular in the age when "double Stank and Walter" lists were king. There were a *lot* of casual players who just went with a more-or-less random mix of mortal units, which tended to perform disastrously on the tabletop. Nemesis was more of a measure of the casual game than the top-tier lists. It gave a cross-section of the player base rather than focusing on the tourney players bringing their A-game.Most 6ed lists were surpassed by 7th edition books in the end, as would be expected. I remember our local Chaos player complaining when furies (his MVP) were taken away before the inception of the 7th ed DoC book, it was about then his army declined slightly.


It would appear that I was mistaken in my impressions. Vampires get only 4 mentions out of 86 entries, where their fair share of the pie would be 5 or 6. I thought there were a few more Vampires in top 3 of each area. It should be noted that VC perfomances didn't seem much better in the tournament scene once DE DoC LM and the rest started coming out. Anyone would think they won every tournament the amount of bitching they got.
VC are competitve in a way that Empire were, having to take the awful stuff like stanks and popemobiles.
I hate to think what a competitive VC list looks like these days, probably powerscroll awfulness:(


If you care, High Elves, Empire, Lizardmen and Warriors of Chaos are the most common armies (not in that order), making up about half the field between the four of them.It doesnt surprise me, although I would have expected a stronger showing from Dwarves and DE


It's not as bad as the Greenskin situation was. Wood Elves *may* have it as bad as the Greenskins did.It really remains to be seen, VC really took a huge amount of nerfs in 8th (far more than any other army), Wood elves took less actual hits, but are probably more affected by the ones they received.

MasterSparks
31-08-2010, 08:39
I and the majority of people polled on this site over and over again would disagree with parts of your reply...

That still doesn't change the fact that the game turned significantly less enjoyable for some of us, though. :(

Souppilgrim
31-08-2010, 22:38
It's a funner but less tactical game. This means more average gamers will have fun playing it. Gamers who want a competitive skill based experiance will have less fun.

GW has succeded in making Fantasy a "Hobby" game like they always wanted it to be.

Major Regression.

That's easily and verifiably false. Skilled players are winning their games by a very large margin in 8th. This may come as a surprise to people who THOUGHT they were skilled players when in reality their vc single dice spam armies, daemon undercosted auto break causing armies, and DE untouchable in combat deathstar armies were winning the games on autopilot.

8th edition is in many ways less random than 7th. Combats in 7th were decided by 5-7 attacks and whether they whiffed or not, and decided by panic tests that had no re rolls and were easy to fail even with ld8 etc.

blackjack
31-08-2010, 23:20
"That's easily and verifiably false."

Verified with data or your bald assertions?


"Skilled players are winning their games by a very large margin in 8th. "

Based on what data?


"This may come as a surprise to people who THOUGHT they were skilled players when in reality their vc single dice spam armies, daemon undercosted auto break causing armies, and DE untouchable in combat deathstar armies were winning the games on autopilot.
"

As opposed lists of mega horde Marauders, and uber High Elf lists which dominate today.

Again some DATA would be nice.

Maoriboy007
31-08-2010, 23:48
Skilled players are winning their games by a very large margin in 8th.How are people who magic and/or powerscroll or warmachine nuke thier opponants off the board any more skilled?

This may come as a surprise to people who THOUGHT they were skilled players when in reality their vc single dice spam armies, daemon undercosted auto break causing armies, and DE untouchable in combat deathstar armies were winning the games on autopilot.I don't know if I thought I was any more skilled than someone who brought two scroll caddies on top of becalming cogitation or ring of hotek so that the only way I would be able to cast anything was to spam IoN.They would certainly moan about how I never cast anything but Invocation though, and still throw a scroll if I cast anything else.

daemon undercosted auto break causing armies, and DE untouchable in combat deathstar armies were winning the games on autopilot.Probably the only argument you have right is auto-break fear. It was an overpowered rule that was the main reason 2 of the so called top three were placed where they were. It was no fault of the players and even they were calling for the change which you got.
In reality LM Skaven, and to a degree, WoC and HE were their peers, all of whom seem to have managed to keep their own powerlists fairly intact.

Dekion
01-09-2010, 00:20
I have what may be some absurd questions but I am just getting back into Warhammer and I never axctually played a game under the 7th edition due to deployments and moving. Anyway.....how do the army books work in 8th edition? Do we still use the same army books from 7th edition or is GW planning on coming out with more army books? Are they going to publiush some updates like Ravening Hordes for all armies, some armies, or no armies?

Also one final question, does anyone ever forsee Chaos Dwarfs coming back? :cries:

Enigmatik1
01-09-2010, 00:39
Probably the only argument you have right is auto-break fear. It was an overpowered rule that was the main reason 2 of the so called top three were placed where they were. It was no fault of the players and even they were calling for the change which you got.

And good riddance...although we were left a bit out in left field in lieu of everything else that changed.


In reality LM Skaven, and to a degree, WoC and HE were their peers, all of whom seem to have managed to keep their own powerlists fairly intact.
Don't worry, Maori...they'll figure it out soon enough.

'Ard Boyz is starting to sort things out. While it's not my thing in the slightest, I think the disparity will only become more apparent as this fiasco plays itself out.

Justice And Rule
01-09-2010, 02:01
"That's easily and verifiably false."

Verified with data or your bald assertions?


"Skilled players are winning their games by a very large margin in 8th. "

Based on what data?

What data did you use to come to your conclusion in the first place? Oh, wait...

You can't demand data when you yourself have provided nothing but unsupported assertions.

The idea that 8th is less tactical is not provably false, just as the idea that 7th is more tactical is not provable. However, supporters of 8th have shown across more than a few threads that ideas like baiting, flanking, and other things still have a great deal of value, but are simply balanced better.

Random charges has made the measuring game less about inches and more about your opponent, while cheap tactics like flying march-blockers are gone. It also allows players to focus on more realistic movement, rather than the absolute precision which was necessary to not get run over in 7th.

Also, the rebalancing of combat allows for actual infantry tactics to work because you no longer have to worry about elite and/or fear-causing units to auto-break them and destroy them instantly. Skirmishers and cavalry now have specializations which requires you to actually think about how you use them, rather than treating them like regular units with special skills. This is especially true with cavalry, which now has a harder (but not impossible) time fighting large units head-on. Things like Stepping Up, Steadfast, and the rightful nerfing of the charge makes it so that it's less about charging and more about the unit match-ups. That opens up more options, and means you have to think more about which units you engage and which units you don't (i.e. Tarpits).

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not saying it's perfect; I'm sure, eventually, people will come up with power lists. There are also problems with some items (Power Scroll, really) which unbalance what is a better balanced magic phase (Mages can accomplish things! What a concept!), but these are minor and easily fixed.

None of that is data, but logical discourse is all we are really going to get in this sort of debate. There's no wrong answer insomuch as there are answers some people prefer to others. At moment, most people seem to prefer 8th to 7th. No hard data, but from everything I've heard and observed, it seems like a safe assertion.

Souppilgrim
01-09-2010, 06:15
I'm too lazy to post a perfect quote tree for two different responders.

The data is in tournament results, and also, while admittedly somewhat more anecdotal, still strong evidence from local campaigns in my area, and online battle reports. If you don't purposefully avoid the signs, you should see it in your area as well. Old timers are slow to adapt with new lists but you should see the skilled gamers coming out ahead after several (sometimes more) practice games.


In reply to blackjack: I don't see horde marauder or uber high elf lists dominating right now. Maybe some teclis lists... I see mostly skaven, lizardmen, dwarf, empire, daemon, and even the occasional O&G or OK lists winning. Although I think the field is still in the transition mode, and we'll need to see more random scenario tournament results to really know what power lists there might be.

In reply to Maoriboy007: Some template warmachines are undercosted right now, salamanders, dwarf grudge throwers, mortars, hellcannons etc. However they are not nearly as broken as problematically costed monsters etc from 7th. If you'll notice one of the factors that make them simply low priced rather than broken is the fact that so many armies have access to them, that in the end it makes it a little more balanced. Also warmachines aren't as hard to kill as 7th edition deathstars, monsters etc.

Also, I could be wrong, but I don't see the 1st turn power scroll actually being pulled off very often in take all comers, random scenario games IN REAL LIFE. I only see these doomsday scenarios in posts on warseer. I see games being won by combined arms. Somewhat large solid blocks, supported by artillery, magic and flankers/hammers.

In the end though, I have to strongly disagree about LM, Skaven, HE, and WoC being the peers of the power trio in 7th edition. They won a fraction of the tournaments that the power trio did.

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 08:15
The data is in tournament results, and also, while admittedly somewhat more anecdotal, still strong evidence from local campaigns in my area, and online battle reports. If you don't purposefully avoid the signs, you should see it in your area as well. Old timers are slow to adapt with new lists but you should see the skilled gamers coming out ahead after several (sometimes more) practice games. From the battle reports and games I've seen, I can't say that I've seen any evidence of "more skill". Many games seem to be won on the blockbuster spell or warmachine hit.
Admittedly combat starts earlier, but ther is not more tactical maneuvering (which is both good and bad) rather a simple quick head on clash (which in most cases is better).


In reply to blackjack: I don't see horde marauder or uber high elf lists dominating right now. Maybe some teclis lists... I see mostly skaven, lizardmen, dwarf, empire, daemon, and even the occasional O&G or OK lists winning. Although I think the field is still in the transition mode, and we'll need to see more random scenario tournament results to really know what power lists there might be..Probably the only thing holding them back are the aforementioned uber spells/gunline lists.
Other than that I can attest they can be pretty nasty.

In reply to Maoriboy007: Some template warmachines are undercosted right now, salamanders, dwarf grudge throwers, mortars, hellcannons etc.The fact is they left gunlines open to abuse. A lot of us saw it coming a mile off, its not one of the improvements 8th brought to the game.

However they are not nearly as broken as problematically costed monsters etc from 7th....The worst of the broken monsters are admittedly still pretty broken this edition. Most others were fixed by the new system of denying ranks steadfast and strikeback.
War machines were actually the counter to monsters in 8th, now they are insanely good at killing monsters, and everything else as well!


If you'll notice one of the factors that make them simply low priced rather than broken is the fact that so many armies have access to them, that in the end it makes it a little more balanced...Not that many have access to decent war machines.




Also warmachines aren't as hard to kill as 7th edition deathstars, monsters etc...
You have to get at them first, in the meantime they pulverise your army.


Also, I could be wrong, but I don't see the 1st turn power scroll actually being pulled off very often in take all comers, random scenario games IN REAL LIFE. I only see these doomsday scenarios in posts on warseer. I see games being won by combined arms. Somewhat large solid blocks, supported by artillery, magic and flankers/hammers....Generally I see the poerscroll decide a game in turn 2, unless a flying model can get into position very early for the most damage. I've seen gateway win planty of games in turn one though.


In the end though, I have to strongly disagree about LM, Skaven, HE, and WoC being the peers of the power trio in 7th edition. They won a fraction of the tournaments that the power trio did.Demons were the only army that won 7ed with discouraging regularity, VC were quickly eclipsed by DE and in thier turn by LM and Skaven.

decker_cky
01-09-2010, 09:13
Generally I see the poerscroll decide a game in turn 2, unless a flying model can get into position very early for the most damage. I've seen gateway win planty of games in turn one though.

The loss of a single unit shouldn't cost you the game. That's part of the list design you have to compensate for. Make it tough to get dominated by said uber spells.

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 10:11
The loss of a single unit shouldn't cost you the game. That's part of the list design you have to compensate for. Make it tough to get dominated by said uber spells.Depends on the unit targetted and/or the spell, if you are the target, then you don't have a lot of choice where it will hit.
A well placed purple sun can hit 2 maybe 3 units, if the spell kills the VC general the army will crumble for the rest of the game, if the unit is a linchpin or counter then an army can pretty much be up a creek.
Not to mention steadfast and the Horde rules are meant to encourage bigger units, so why are we being sent these mixed signals?

Crovax20
01-09-2010, 10:12
There are currently a two main concerns for me with 8th edition, that is template warmachines and magic. However I think these two serve to make people think about how many units and how many points they are going to spend on a unit. After all a template is only effective if you offer the opponent a clear cut target for it.

In smaller games this can be quite a problem however, as you play with less units and the big spells and templates can really put on the pain fast. In larger games magic effects will be slowly diminished, while template shooting warmachines can scale with the points level leading to a gunline of epic proportions if your opponent is so inclined.

I don't really play in tournaments so most of the lists I face at my LGS are quite friendly and try to be atleast somewhat balanced in units taken. So for me 8th edition is quite an improvement.

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 10:28
I have what may be some absurd questions but I am just getting back into Warhammer and I never axctually played a game under the 7th edition due to deployments and moving. Anyway.....how do the army books work in 8th edition? Do we still use the same army books from 7th edition or is GW planning on coming out with more army books? Are they going to publiush some updates like Ravening Hordes for all armies, some armies, or no armies?

Also one final question, does anyone ever forsee Chaos Dwarfs coming back? :cries:7th ed books still work when used in conjunction with the GW FAQs. The beastmen and skaven books were written (apparantly) with 8th edition in mind and are supposed to be compatible anyway.

enygma7
01-09-2010, 13:08
Not to mention steadfast and the Horde rules are meant to encourage bigger units, so why are we being sent these mixed signals?

You aren't being sent mixed signals, the designers of 8th ed have implemented a deliberate system of checks and balances in an attempt to get people to take balanced and well rounded armies.

Steadfast and horde encourage bigger units but uber spells discourage them. So how many points are you willing to invest in any single unit? A deathstar will be powerful but horribly vulnerable to the right uber spell.

Likewise, you can rely on your uberspell to win you the game but you're going to end up with egg on your face when your puple sun suicide mage finds himself up against any of the armies with high I, or gets unlucky, or you meet a player who isn't fielding a deathstar. Because you are picking your lores without knowing your opponent, right?

I simply don't recognise the experiences many people here are describing which leads me to believe the problem lies not with 8th ed but with the groups these people play in. If you select an army comprising of a few deathstars you'll end up with an army highly vulnerable to magic and war machines and capable of doing very little except head to head dice fests.

The way to succeed in 8th (and have a fun, tactical playing experience) is to field a balanced army capable of dealing with a wide range of eventualities and to spread out your investment so there is no single unit your army can't do without. I've very little sympathy for people who whinge about uber spells whilst repeatedly relying on deathstar units as the linchpin of their army.

On a different note, I have to agree with souppilgrim that I've found 8th ed to be far less random than 7th - LD tests are the single most important dice rolls in the game and now you get re-rolls all round and steadfast. Other elements of randomness pale in comparison to the increased reliability this gives your armies.

Commissar Vaughn
01-09-2010, 15:51
/\ I agree with him /\

freddieyu
01-09-2010, 16:13
I second the motion....

Azhrar
01-09-2010, 16:25
Enygma17 pointed out exactly how I feel, so won't bother repeating what has already been said.

Kal Taron
01-09-2010, 17:37
Yet uber spells are IMO not a good idea to balance hordes. They ae simply too random or very dependant on race/army list.
They'll have to suffice though.

blackjack
01-09-2010, 18:36
"What data did you use to come to your conclusion in the first place? Oh, wait...

You can't demand data when you yourself have provided nothing but unsupported assertions.
"


I never claimed my assertions were VERIFIED. I can demand data from someone who claims that his opnion is VERIFIED. Please understand the meaning of the words you use.

decker_cky
01-09-2010, 19:11
Yet uber spells are IMO not a good idea to balance hordes. They ae simply too random or very dependant on race/army list.
They'll have to suffice though.

Well...purple sun is quite random, but potentially the most devastating. It's also the only one that can turn back on the caster even on a successful casting, or failing that, just not make it to the target with a low roll.

But dwellers below and plague are both pretty reliable at gimping a unit (dwellers is also an incredible sniping spell for wizards). 13th spell is great against super elites, not so great against average units. Final transmutation doesn't have the matchups the other spells have, but has a consistent performance (and incredibly amusing side effects :P).

I actually find them to be surprisingly good balances. It adds another layer you need to consider in army design. Sure, on the internet everyone takes bigger units because they're better and super spells win every game of warhammer, but as you find a balance, those extremes tend to be that - extremes.

For example: With all the griping about purple sun, you'd think lizardmen players would adapt and start taking lore of light because they could make their army much more resilient to that huge weakness. Vampire counts have this option too. Yet Vampires seem to load out with gimmicky beasts or death builds, and slann seem to almost exclusively take life.

chamelion 6
01-09-2010, 19:14
You aren't being sent mixed signals, the designers of 8th ed have implemented a deliberate system of checks and balances in an attempt to get people to take balanced and well rounded armies.

Steadfast and horde encourage bigger units but uber spells discourage them. So how many points are you willing to invest in any single unit? A deathstar will be powerful but horribly vulnerable to the right uber spell.

Likewise, you can rely on your uberspell to win you the game but you're going to end up with egg on your face when your puple sun suicide mage finds himself up against any of the armies with high I, or gets unlucky, or you meet a player who isn't fielding a deathstar. Because you are picking your lores without knowing your opponent, right?

I simply don't recognise the experiences many people here are describing which leads me to believe the problem lies not with 8th ed but with the groups these people play in. If you select an army comprising of a few deathstars you'll end up with an army highly vulnerable to magic and war machines and capable of doing very little except head to head dice fests.

The way to succeed in 8th (and have a fun, tactical playing experience) is to field a balanced army capable of dealing with a wide range of eventualities and to spread out your investment so there is no single unit your army can't do without. I've very little sympathy for people who whinge about uber spells whilst repeatedly relying on deathstar units as the linchpin of their army.

On a different note, I have to agree with souppilgrim that I've found 8th ed to be far less random than 7th - LD tests are the single most important dice rolls in the game and now you get re-rolls all round and steadfast. Other elements of randomness pale in comparison to the increased reliability this gives your armies.

Probably the most perceptive and on point post in this thread.

decker_cky
01-09-2010, 19:26
On the randomness...my beasts too have become much more reliable. I'll trade a few failed charges for much more reliable combat and psychology any day of the week.

Kudzu
01-09-2010, 19:32
For example: With all the griping about purple sun, you'd think lizardmen players would adapt and start taking lore of light because they could make their army much more resilient to that huge weakness. Vampire counts have this option too. Yet Vampires seem to load out with gimmicky beasts or death builds, and slann seem to almost exclusively take life.

I prefer Life on my Slann so I take Becalming Cogitation to help prevent the ini-test or die spells. Not as good as Light for prevention, but it mostly gets the job done.

I've also found that with the proper set-up Chameleon skinks can prevent the suicide mage builds from getting close enough to do their thing either by blocking their path/landing zone or filling them with enough poison to drop a greater daemon.

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 21:31
You aren't being sent mixed signals, the designers of 8th ed have implemented a deliberate system of checks and balances in an attempt to get people to take balanced and well rounded armies.If that were the case then the issue wouldn't really exist, it seems to me that abusive builds were a problem in 7th and still are in 8th.
If a SAD gunline or Uber destructo List is super effective then someone will take it.
Why have the Horde rule at all when its so simple to remove the unit that can benefit from it?
Personally I preferred getting into a fight with Chaos knights, at least I might take one or two with me.


Steadfast and horde encourage bigger units but uber spells discourage them. So how many points are you willing to invest in any single unit? A deathstar will be powerful but horribly vulnerable to the right uber spell.So what are we supposed to do , play MSUs? Hoew big is a unit supposed to be before you don't worry about it being removed?20-30? Its a poor system of checks and balances then. If your opponant can arbitrarily remove a unit of his choice then its probably going to be the one you can least afford to lose.


Likewise, you can rely on your uberspell to win you the game but you're going to end up with egg on your face when your puple sun suicide mage finds himself up against any of the armies with high I, or gets unlucky, or you meet a player who isn't fielding a deathstar. Because you are picking your lores without knowing your opponent, right?.So you either play an elite army that is immune to the majority of spells (Like Chaos or Elves) or hope your opponant gets unlucky, otherwise you are out of luck? I'm very happy for the people who can field that kind of stuff.


I simply don't recognise the experiences many people here are describing which leads me to believe the problem lies not with 8th ed but with the groups these people play in. If you select an army comprising of a few deathstars you'll end up with an army highly vulnerable to magic and war machines and capable of doing very little except head to head dice fests.Or you end up with magic dice fests and war machines on either side of the field blasting each other. Surely the game can be flexible enough to provide competitive and fun gameplay.
The spirit of the game paragraph often quoted doesn't make sense when you consider Hellpit abominations and Hydras.


The way to succeed in 8th (and have a fun, tactical playing experience) is to field a balanced army capable of dealing with a wide range of eventualities and to spread out your investment so there is no single unit your army can't do without. I've very little sympathy for people who whinge about uber spells whilst repeatedly relying on deathstar units as the linchpin of their army..:rolleyes:Please. Thats all well and good as long as you play something like DE or Chaos, most other armies are built to have some kid of deficiency to counter thier strengths. The problem is Uber spells and war machines currently upset this balance.
If you have just lost 20 models to a spell, you probably cant afford to lose it, especially considered thats 20 models your opponant is ahead by now.
IS every largish unit a deathstar now? You have to go big to account for steadfast and horde, but also to compensate for losses you take from warmachines and spells now, like I said mixed signals.


On a different note, I have to agree with souppilgrim that I've found 8th ed to be far less random than 7th - LD tests are the single most important dice rolls in the game and now you get re-rolls all round and steadfast. Other elements of randomness pale in comparison to the increased reliability this gives your armies.I would disagree, its just as randon as 7th ever was if not more. In some cases I don't mind (random charges doesn't particularly bother me as some), but one of the strengths and weaknesses of 7th was the reliability of certain aspects of the game.

chamelion 6
01-09-2010, 21:59
Ahhhh.... Let's talk about reliability.
Does an olympic runner turn in a championship time every run?

Does as pro football quarterback throw the football on target every single pass? Does his championship reciever catch every pass that hit's him in the numbers?

Does a world class pool player sink every shot? A world class golfer?

Does ANY profesional athlete perform at his peak all the time without fail?

So why expect units and characters reflecting living (or unliving) animated personae to perform to that level.

THAT is the essence of what tactics is about. No army EVER performed with that kind of consistency. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever.... Successful armies accounted for that kind of inconsistency because it was the norm.

That is the essence of 8th over 7th. The point is to move away from perfect little robot armies and bring something essence of real combat and planning and tactics into it. It forces you to think quickly, decisively, take risks, and think outside some preprogrammed static little box.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
01-09-2010, 22:12
The trouble isn't with überspells, but when you can reliably get them off e.g. with power scrolls, Teclis or Book of Hoeth - especially, when some of these remove the negative aspects of IF.

The spells themselves are cool, but you'll see that most spells in the new edition can have equally devastating effects, even though they're a mere hex or augment spell - yet noone seem to complain about these.

Magic has finally gotten its own role in 8th., and this is great. Yet it needs a bit of randomness and risk taking to retain its unique 'feel'. Ban those things that make magic predictable, and you'll find that you'll get a better game.

If you have trouble with certain builds and don't want to fight them, then just concede and move on and encourage your opponent to go with a milder cheddar instead of hardcore blue cheese.

Remember that whining on whineseer, won't accomplish anything, but changing the game to suit your tastes will.

..

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 22:35
Ahhhh.... Let's talk about reliability. ...THAT is the essence of what tactics is about. No army EVER performed with that kind of consistency. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever.... Successful armies accounted for that kind of inconsistency because it was the norm.


...its just as random as 7th ever was if not more. In some cases I don't mind (random charges doesn't particularly bother me as some), but one of the strengths and weaknesses of 7th was the reliability of certain aspects of the game.

Just to highlight my actual opinion on the matter.

Lets look at fear for an example, it had its reliable aspect and its random aspect. Its random aspect is that it only came into play when you lost combat, its reliable aspect was that it automatically broke units not immune to fear.
Now its completely random, but the reliable aspect is gone.Autobreak was an abombination, however if you pay for fear you might at least expect some reliable element.


That is the essence of 8th over 7th. The point is to move away from perfect little robot armies and bring something essence of real combat and planning and tactics into it. It forces you to think quickly, decisively, take risks, and think outside some preprogrammed static little box. Losing units due to some random event spell etc isn't always fun.(.ie my second game of 8th terrain ate about 25%of my army) Warhammer is supposed to have a randome element , thats why we use dice, but you are supposed to be able to compensate to make certain aspects more reliable, hence the mechanics of things like stats. This was the case in 7th and is still so in 8th. Unfortunatly, the more reliable parts seem to apply more to war machines , elite type armies and parts of the magic phase.

Tzeentch Lover
01-09-2010, 22:35
My last 7th Ed game was my WoC against a DE list with tons of shades/assassins, 2xHydras, Harpies, and minimal core units on a heavily forested table. Literally could not do a thing. :cries: I thought Warhammer was supposed be fun...

8th edition is the shake up that Fantasy needed. At least most armies stand a chance now. My local GW ran an escalation league at the end of 7th. When it was announced, I was in my "smart-ass" mood, I jokingly called out why they did not just cut out the middle man and eliminate anyone who didn't enter a DE/VC/DoC list. The few that didn't play those armies laughed, and everyone else just kind of looked either sheepish or ready to start a fight. :angel:

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 22:53
The trouble isn't with überspells.If the uberspells were toned down then I think people would have a lot less of a problem.

but when you can reliably get them off e.g. with power scrolls, Teclis or Book of Hoeth - especially, when some of these remove the negative aspects of IF.Indeed this does make an underlying problem worse.

The spells themselves are cool, but you'll see that most spells in the new edition can have equally devastating effects, even though they're a mere hex or augment spell - yet noone seem to complain about these.Beacause a Hex and Augment still take into account combat rolls saves and break tests rather than skipping to "Bang! you're dead"

Magic has finally gotten its own role in 8th., and this is great. Yet it needs a bit of randomness and risk taking to retain its unique 'feel'. Ban those things that make magic predictable, and you'll find that you'll get a better game.In a way yes, I still think toning down what is really a few bad apple in a good batch is called for.

If you have trouble with certain builds and don't want to fight them, then just concede and move on and encourage your opponent to go with a milder cheddar instead of hardcore blue cheese.That still doesn't change the fact that the cheeese build indicates an abusable loophole in the rules, better to fix a problem if thier is one IMO.

Remember that whining on whineseer, won't accomplish anything, but changing the game to suit your tastes will.Latest changes to the game would prove you wrong. If you went through all the anti VC threads, you would find a change in 8th that addresses just about all of them.
If you thought about it, fear was really the only one they had coming to them.
Personally I liked the way I played the game, I didn't try to rely on any single aspect of the game but tried to be flexible enough to use them if I could, Now I see a shift towards utter reliance on an uncertain magic phase, and a vain wish I could take cannons and stonethrowers in my army, just to compete.

chamelion 6
01-09-2010, 23:28
Just to highlight my actual opinion on the matter.

Lets look at fear for an example, it had its reliable aspect and its random aspect. Its random aspect is that it only came into play when you lost combat, its reliable aspect was that it automatically broke units not immune to fear.
Now its completely random, but the reliable aspect is gone.Autobreak was an abombination, however if you pay for fear you might at least expect some reliable element.

Losing units due to some random event spell etc isn't always fun.(.ie my second game of 8th terrain ate about 25%of my army) Warhammer is supposed to have a randome element , thats why we use dice, but you are supposed to be able to compensate to make certain aspects more reliable, hence the mechanics of things like stats. This was the case in 7th and is still so in 8th. Unfortunatly, the more reliable parts seem to apply more to war machines , elite type armies and parts of the magic phase.

Carrying fear from 5th edition into 6th was a bad idea and the fear / autobreak rule was completely out of place with the rest of the game.

Undead and fear causing units only got a bigger nerf because they were disproportionately reliable in the game anyway. That was the appeal to so many power gamers. Fixing that rule should have been done in 6th, since it wasn't it was going to either go on being broken or it was going to hurt undead badly when it did get fixed.

And rolling more dice has a stabalizing effect on a random event. The more dice you roll the closer to average the majority of rolls are going to be, so GW has taken the randomness in to account. Yes, charges and the like have greater extreme ends, but the majority of charges are going to fall closer to an average distance. I like that kind of modeling. It has it's own level of predictability with a potential greater extreme if it fails... (or can rarely suceed to that greater extreme) Like the various athletes, their average will be predictable most of the time, but they are capable of extreme successes and failures.

That's exactly the feel I appreciate in the game. It is more organic and lifelike and prevents the kind of predictability and reliability I really dislike in a wargame. It's the kind of thing that forces people to approach things without getting too "checklist" oriented in their playing.

I can appreciate that some people don't like it, but to describe it as less tactical or too random is nonsense.

Maoriboy007
02-09-2010, 00:12
;)
Carrying fear from 5th edition into 6th was a bad idea and the fear / autobreak rule was completely out of place with the rest of the game.I absolutely agree, is there perhaps a correlation between the increased effect of forums like warseer and the long overdue change to the rule? I would still have given a +1 CR bonus to fear units though, so fear would have a tangible value rather than dependant on a random roll.

Undead and fear causing units only got a bigger nerf because they were disproportionately reliable in the game anyway.Lizardmen Demons Dwarves and DE are just some armies that could certainly field extremely reliable armies, however undead seem to have been exclusively targeted pretty solidly apart from fear.


That was the appeal to so many power gamers.Powergaming was in no way limited to the top three. Demons were easily the best, but to be quite honest VC got more rap about it than they deserved, Hydra Lists, Slann Engines HPAs Thorek Gunlines Stankmobile armies are very familiar terms that should IMO engender equal loathing to spamvocation lists.


Fixing that rule should have been done in 6th, since it wasn't it was going to either go on being broken or it was going to hurt undead badly when it did get fixedYou're absolutely right about that, although if fear had been the only fix they took or just one of a few they would still be a decent army to play without being OP.


And rolling more dice has a stabalizing effect on a random event. The more dice you roll the closer to average the majority of rolls are going to be, so GW has taken the randomness in to account. Yes, charges and the like have greater extreme ends, but the majority of charges are going to fall closer to an average distance. I like that kind of modeling. It has it's own level of predictability with a potential greater extreme if it fails... (or can rarely suceed to that greater extreme) Like the various athletes, their average will be predictable most of the time, but they are capable of extreme successes and failures.Perhaps in some ways you are right, I actually have no problem with random charges ad the like, but the argument in this case was is 8th more random than 7th, the answer is yes really, because many things that were a certainty in 7th (Magic dice generation, chargeing distance etc) are a dice roll now. I dont really have positive or ngative aspect on that issue so much.

That's exactly the feel I appreciate in the game. It is more organic and lifelike and prevents the kind of predictability and reliability I really dislike in a wargame. It's the kind of thing that forces people to approach things without getting too "checklist" oriented in their playing.Well unpredictability can go to far, just ask O&G players how they feel about the animosity rule.


I can appreciate that some people don't like it, but to describe it as less tactical or too random is nonsense.
No more than the people who seem to claim that 7th was more random or less tactical. .
If I were to be honest I would say that my own opinion is that 8th is slightly less tactical, but not nessesarily to its complete detriment:D

shadowskale
02-09-2010, 00:17
I love the new rules, much less faff, easier to learn how to play, and most of all you can use lords in 1k games now. :D

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2010, 00:46
Ahhhh.... Let's talk about reliability.
Does an olympic runner turn in a championship time every run?
Do his times vary between that of an asthmatic badger with a limp and the peak of human capability?

The variation due to randomness has a range of 10" while the variation between slow (M3) and fast (M5) infantry is only 2".

Uncertainty is one thing. Randomness is another. It's possible to have uncertainty with less wild randomness.

Now for most of the game uncertainty is tied to stats and the stat in question has a big impact on the chance of success. There's usually a big difference in the chance of success - an extra point of strength is a big deal. Many dice are rolled in combat or shooting, meaning the dice rolls are pretty predictable. Charges however are a single dice roll of high importance where the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat in question.

That's the objection, not to variation or uncertainty in charge distances.

chamelion 6
02-09-2010, 00:49
;)I absolutely agree, is there perhaps a correlation between the increased effect of forums like warseer and the long overdue change to the rule? I would still have given a +1 CR bonus to fear units though, so fear would have a tangible value rather than dependant on a random roll.
I think I could get behind the +1CR


Lizardmen Demons Dwarves and DE are just some armies that could certainly field extremely reliable armies, however undead seem to have been exclusively targeted pretty solidly apart from fear.
I don't think that the undead were so much singled out to be nerfed as I think GW just decided to take a whole new approach to them. Since 8th was envisioned as a reboot, I tink they just decided to restructure the whole undead philosophy rather than keep tinkering with it over several editions. It hurts more now, but in the long run I think it's the wiser move. We'll have to see what comes of the undead with the first book to get released.

By drasticly toning down the undead on the broad level that leaves more room for special rules to make the TKs and VCs very different armies rather than ugly cousins of each other. I think that will be a good thing too (if that's what they are up too...)


Powergaming was in no way limited to the top three. Demons were easily the best, but to be quite honest VC got more rap about it than they deserved, Hydra Lists, Slann Engines HPAs Thorek Gunlines Stankmobile armies are very familiar terms that should IMO engender equal loathing to spamvocation lists.
That's true... And with all the artificial checks and balances I don't think they were overly powerful. But the fact that they were probably the most predictable army in the game, they did attract a lot of players for just that reason. By removing the randomness to the greatest extent possible your tactics become more formulaic and less up to chance.


You're absolutely right about that, although if fear had been the only fix they took or just one of a few they would still be a decent army to play without being OP.
Like I said, I think it's just a sweeping change in design philosophy. Not so much to hurt them (though that's what happened on the short term), but to bring them more in line with the overall philosophy of the game. The undead were always out of step with everyone else and that made them hard to cost and sync with other armies without a lot of complication and silly rules.


Perhaps in some ways you are right, I actually have no problem with random charges ad the like, but the argument in this case was is 8th more random than 7th, the answer is yes really, because many things that were a certainty in 7th (Magic dice generation, chargeing distance etc) are a dice roll now. I dont really have positive or ngative aspect on that issue so much.
Well unpredictability can go to far, just ask O&G players how they feel about the animosity rule.
:D As a matter of fact, I went from playing VC to playing O&G... I personally liked the animosity rule 'cause I think that defines the O&G army perfectly. But I also admit that I went from having almost never loosing a game to almost never winning....



No more than the people who seem to claim that 7th was more random or less tactical. .
If I were to be honest I would say that my own opinion is that 8th is slightly less tactical, but not nessesarily to its complete detriment:D
You're absolutely right about people claiming 7th is less tactical. But mostly I hear that comment as a knee jerk retort to the comment that 8th lacks any tactics so I've never really taken it seriously.

Personally I think tactics are tactics and as long as two people are competing on any level they are going to apply. The tactics and the demands are different, but I don't think more or less is an accurate description. Tactics, really, are nothing more than approaches to solving problems.

Predictible and reliable units require a certain way of thinking and problem solving to be successful. It's more linear and mathmatically simplier, so it relies more on the math and mathmatic ability.

Randomness and unpredictibility require a different way of thinking and a different approach to problem solving. It requires a more abstract approach and a nonlinear way of thinking. The math is so completely complex it is beyond mental solutions, so you need a different approach to solving problems.


Do his times vary between that of an asthmatic badger with a limp and the peak of human capability?

The variation due to randomness has a range of 10" while the variation between slow (M3) and fast (M5) infantry is only 2".

Uncertainty is one thing. Randomness is another. It's possible to have uncertainty with less wild randomness.

Now for most of the game uncertainty is tied to stats and the stat in question has a big impact on the chance of success. There's usually a big difference in the chance of success - an extra point of strength is a big deal. Many dice are rolled in combat or shooting, meaning the dice rolls are pretty predictable. Charges however are a single dice roll of high importance where the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat in question.

That's the objection, not to variation or uncertainty in charge distances.

They can, absolutely... He can stumble off the start and DNF, or he can have an exceptional run and produce a time he may never again match. Both are extremes well within possibility, but not probability. The more dice you roll, the closer you get to that. Again, it's easier to roll a 6 on one die than a 12 on two or a 60 on ten. in each case the probability of the extreme is more remote. Like the runner the the probabilities in the roll move closer to the average. More dice may have a wider spread of extreme but a lower probability of hitting tthe extreme. So if you want to emphasize the average a 2 d6 roll is preferable than a 1 d6. For Cavalry a 3 d6 roll is even more likely to push average...

In a single die roll the probability of an extreme roll is the same as the middle. 1 in 6, so there is no true average, you are just bringing the extremes closer together. To me, that's a less acceptable solution.

Maoriboy007
02-09-2010, 01:56
I don't think that the undead were so much singled out to be nerfed as I think GW just decided to take a whole new approach to them.Maybe I'm just more cynical ;) but it seems more like VC were sacrificed on the altar of convinience, rather than balance them out a bit it was easier to hit them repeatedly with a nerf bat every time someone said "I don't like (insert comment) about VC".
If you're right I don't know if I like the direction they're going, which seems to be dominated by the magic dependant bunker horde mentality.

Souppilgrim
02-09-2010, 08:06
Do his times vary between that of an asthmatic badger with a limp and the peak of human capability?

The variation due to randomness has a range of 10" while the variation between slow (M3) and fast (M5) infantry is only 2".

Uncertainty is one thing. Randomness is another. It's possible to have uncertainty with less wild randomness.

Now for most of the game uncertainty is tied to stats and the stat in question has a big impact on the chance of success. There's usually a big difference in the chance of success - an extra point of strength is a big deal. Many dice are rolled in combat or shooting, meaning the dice rolls are pretty predictable. Charges however are a single dice roll of high importance where the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat in question.

That's the objection, not to variation or uncertainty in charge distances.

As far as how actual charges can be random you have to view it from the point of a real battle. One unit charging another. In a lot of cases what is stopping the target unit from counter charging as soon as they see the attackers coming for them? Nothing, unless they are ambushed or the attacking unit has a lot more momentum (horses).

Alric
02-09-2010, 09:38
Do his times vary between that of an asthmatic badger with a limp and the peak of human capability?

The variation due to randomness has a range of 10" while the variation between slow (M3) and fast (M5) infantry is only 2".

Uncertainty is one thing. Randomness is another. It's possible to have uncertainty with less wild randomness.

Now for most of the game uncertainty is tied to stats and the stat in question has a big impact on the chance of success. There's usually a big difference in the chance of success - an extra point of strength is a big deal. Many dice are rolled in combat or shooting, meaning the dice rolls are pretty predictable. Charges however are a single dice roll of high importance where the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat in question.

That's the objection, not to variation or uncertainty in charge distances.


Carrying fear from 5th edition into 6th was a bad idea and the fear / autobreak rule was completely out of place with the rest of the game.

Undead and fear causing units only got a bigger nerf because they were disproportionately reliable in the game anyway. That was the appeal to so many power gamers. Fixing that rule should have been done in 6th, since it wasn't it was going to either go on being broken or it was going to hurt undead badly when it did get fixed.

And rolling more dice has a stabalizing effect on a random event. The more dice you roll the closer to average the majority of rolls are going to be, so GW has taken the randomness in to account. Yes, charges and the like have greater extreme ends, but the majority of charges are going to fall closer to an average distance. I like that kind of modeling. It has it's own level of predictability with a potential greater extreme if it fails... (or can rarely suceed to that greater extreme) Like the various athletes, their average will be predictable most of the time, but they are capable of extreme successes and failures.

That's exactly the feel I appreciate in the game. It is more organic and lifelike and prevents the kind of predictability and reliability I really dislike in a wargame. It's the kind of thing that forces people to approach things without getting too "checklist" oriented in their playing.

I can appreciate that some people don't like it, but to describe it as less tactical or too random is nonsense.


As far as how actual charges can be random you have to view it from the point of a real battle. One unit charging another. In a lot of cases what is stopping the target unit from counter charging as soon as they see the attackers coming for them? Nothing, unless they are ambushed or the attacking unit has a lot more momentum (horses).

The way I look at 8th edition, I know the minimum distance any unit will charge , all other distances are purely random chance. In games this translates into play styles , from conservative to risky. Its a different game where players can introduce their personality into the game they can be a safe conservative player with little or no risk taking or they can be a risk calculating player determining the risk of every move or they can be an all out damn the odds risk taker.

Metal_ash
02-09-2010, 12:09
Before new army books are here the points value in 8th is totaly unbalanced, some units have now got "free" special rules without a single point been added to their costs and some units have lost a ton and still cost the same. With that said i not a fan at all of 8th rules anyways cause i find sooo many rules depend on pure luck with dice rolls. Untill new armybooks be here is be sure to stick with 7th edition.
Sad to add that even with new army books the 8th is an abomination to the players that actually like tactics as most of the game now seems to be based on rolling 2d6 for what ever you wants to do.

Dungeon_Lawyer
02-09-2010, 13:03
Its a snoozer for me...boring and watered down, nothing but infantry anymore- charging (randomly) at one another, then you roll alot of dice and alot of models die.......

Commissar Vaughn
02-09-2010, 13:34
Its a snoozer for me...boring and watered down, nothing but infantry anymore- charging (randomly) at one another, then you roll alot of dice and alot of models die.......


This doesnt make sense. Theres no reason to take only infantry. Its not like cavalry cant smash them up, and you'll need artillery and monsters to get rid of the cavalry, and skirmishers etc to get rid of the guns... In fact I would say one trick ponys are now less viable this edition. You need options and all infantry only gives you one option: Stand and Die.

Stand and Die hasnt been an approved battle winning strategy since....er...well, I cant think of a battle where it ever resulted in a decisive victory.

Double Envelopment however is an approved battle winning strategy and "all infantry" will struggle to achieve it even against other all infantry forces, and certainly wont at all ever achieve it against a good mix of heavy and light cavalry, infantry and skirmishers and artillery.

Its always better to have a toolbox with a variety of tools, rather than to rely on a blunt instrument for everything.

Bac5665
02-09-2010, 14:38
Maybe cav will be used more going forward, but at 'Ard Boyz, there was almost no cav, and the only cav there was didn't perform that well, dying in every game.

I just don't see how cav is useful. Cav isn't cost effective anymore. Why take empire cav when I can just take Greatswords? Or mortars? Why take Chaos Knights when Warriors are just as good, or only a little worse for less than half the cost?

Cav's point was to break things in one turn. That's the point of cav in 7E. That's no longer something cav can do, at least not reliably, no matter how killy it is. And now, with fighting in two ranks, infantry can be almost as killy, and can prevent bouncing by having ranks. And it's cheaper, or at least you get more bodies for the same points, and with casualties being up across the board, that's extremely valuable.

I'm not saying cav is useless, or even bad in every case. I'm saying that infantry is better in every case, by being cheaper if nothing else, but usually for a host of other virtues as well.

Justice And Rule
02-09-2010, 14:48
Do you know how exactly it was used, Bac? I'm actually interested to see how tourney players used it and why it failed for them.

Bac5665
02-09-2010, 14:59
Well, that was actually a terrible example because it was 1 unit of 50 warriors of Chaos, two hellcannons and 10 Knights. That and some characters was it. So it failed because everyone focused on it and took the minor win by making sure the 50 warriors stayed out of combat.

But there were no other knights there, and this was Ard Boyz. Now, this is anecdotal evidence, and thus meaningless, but I've played many more games of 8E, and I've yet to see cav be effective, compared to infantry with similar combat stats.

This is not to say that no cav unit I've played against has done anything; some have. I played against all knight brets in 8E, and I did take casualties. But at the same time, the cav had a hard time breaking skaven slaves for god's sake. And in 8E, killing 2/3 of the slaves doesn't help; you got to kill them all, and do it fast enough to kill other units of slaves. Cav have a hard time doing this than infantry because of numbers, and because casualties tend to reduce attacks faster with cav.

If you still got half points for half units, cav would have a greater role, or at least they might. But there are so many small changes that make infantry more effective that if you have infantry with similar stats to the cav, they are almost always better.

TheKingInYellow
02-09-2010, 15:15
My experience is very different than yours. I don't charge my cav into hordes of infantry, I use them like a surgical tool. They rip up war machines, skirmishers, archers and the like and get to them very quickly, not to mention the psychological effect that they have on opposing generals.

And how, exactly, are Chaos Warriors as good as Knights for half the points? I was unaware that Warriors were M8, base S5, with a 1+ AS and an extra S4 attack from the mount.


the cav had a hard time breaking skaven slaves for god's sake

This is just bad generalship. Who charges cav solo into a steadfast tarpit?

Bac5665
02-09-2010, 15:50
Well, if you're brets, you probably have to at some point.

But besides that, if the best you have is that cav will be able to kill 100 point warmachines 2 turn earlier than cheaper small infantry units is a good reason to take a 250 point unit of cheap cav, more power to you. My skinks do just fine for 70 points. So do my Plague Censor Bearers and doomwheels. Cav costs more than any of those things, is easier kill with those things, and is only a little faster in 8E. I'll trade that speed for half the point cost any day.

And Warriors are as good at chaos knights because they will have numbers. They will get more attacks and will do more wounds. And they will weather casualties better. Sure, knights will do better against monstrous infantry and other knights, but again, if knights are only good at countering things that exist mostly just to kill knights, color me unimpressed. Those things will see the field less too, and for the same reasons. And a knight is barely harder to kill than a warrior. The armor save is meaningless; both have good enough saves that unless you're ignoring saves, your not killing them; but against things that do cancel saves, the knights are so much more screwed. And you can bet that every army will have some ability to deal with saves. Its too important now. So knights will just get killed right away; the warriors will have a chance to weather casualties and stick around.

Look, its not that a few units of knights can't be effective; its that infantry will almost always be much more effective. At some point, unless the metagame changes considerably (and it may) cav will dissapear.

decker_cky
02-09-2010, 17:40
Do his times vary between that of an asthmatic badger with a limp and the peak of human capability?

The variation due to randomness has a range of 10" while the variation between slow (M3) and fast (M5) infantry is only 2".

Uncertainty is one thing. Randomness is another. It's possible to have uncertainty with less wild randomness.

Now for most of the game uncertainty is tied to stats and the stat in question has a big impact on the chance of success. There's usually a big difference in the chance of success - an extra point of strength is a big deal. Many dice are rolled in combat or shooting, meaning the dice rolls are pretty predictable. Charges however are a single dice roll of high importance where the dice roll is more important than variation in the stat in question.

That's the objection, not to variation or uncertainty in charge distances.

The random charge distance represents more than just how fast they charge. It does represent that, along with difficulty in the terrain, motivation, perception of the distance they need to charge, and any other number of factors. The extremes are only when all of the factors line up.

chamelion 6
02-09-2010, 18:16
So much of my opinion of 7th edition comes from 2 sources; what people say in praise of it and what those same people say to condem 8th. Honestly, it, to me, paints a pretty dismal picture of 7th.
For example...

"Troop type A is supposed to do this. Now it doesn't do that so they broke the game and took out all the tactics."

That's only true if you completely limit your thinking. First of all, just because something worked in 7th does not mean that's how it's supposed to be done, it only means that's how 7th did it. Formulas, by themselves, are NOT tactics. Too many people had a list, figured out the formula that worked and simply went through the motions over and over, to the point it was almost mindlessly rote. Tactics yes, but little in the way of thought or critical thinking went into it after a certain point.

As for the complaint that it's now all luck and there is not skill cause you roll too many dice. That lacks any understanding of probabilities or even the fundamental nature of the process of the game.

First of all, as already mentioned more dice = less random, not more random. If people arent getting that by now they're either intentionally ignoring it or unwilling to get it. 8th edition still has a plethora of modifiers for different actions and in order to apply them you have to do certain things. Those mods are either an advantage or disadvantage and the person that accumulates the most advantages is going to win. Period.

Unless you're willing to prove me wrong by agreeing to never accept a mod or special rule in your favor again in another game of WFB while allowing you're opponent to take theirs. Do that and win half your games and you have an argument. And yes, that includes any mods from any special rules, no special movements, noting but a list with straight stats. Any takers? :eyebrows:

8th's style of play doesn't suit everybody, but it's hard to have a constructive discussion when you keep circling back to things with no basis. It's time to break out of old, dated ideas. Even if you ultimately reject them because you don't like them, you should at least try to grasp the principal before you dismiss it.